# P-38 Lightening vs YAK 9



## kot (Mar 22, 2008)

After coming across limited sources on the incident that happened on the 7th of November, 1944, all I discovered was a report from the headquarters of 866 IAP. In this report, it states that at 12:50pm 12 American planes( P-38 Lightening) attacked a Russian Infantry that were traveling west from Nish. Four of the American planes started an attack on the Russians while the rest of them was keeping watch at 1500 meters. After several rounds were fired, the Russian artillery shutting down one of the American P-38 planes. At 1:00pm, 2 YAK-9 planes took off. At 1:05pm, 6 more YAK-9 planes followed and then at 1:10pm 2 YAK-3 planes also followed. A dog fight broke out between the countries ending with 2 YAK-9 planes being taken down by the Americans and one more by friendly artillery fire. Russian planes and antiaircraft artillery shut down 5 Lightening planes. *The P-38 displayed an impeccable ability to maintain horizontal and were were able to quickly maneuver onto the tail of YAK-9 planes because they had a much shorter radius of banking(turn-in). *The YAK-9 had better ability to withstand vertical maneuvers. 

First, I am looking for more information regarding this fight. ( Air Classics Vol. 38, No.8 August 2002 is the information that I currently already possess) 

*My main question is: How is it possible that this report's information is legitimate about the P-38 being persistently on the tail of the YAK-9 with the knowledge that the YAK-9 was strong at horizontal maneuvers. It is also true that the P-38 was not an amazingly maneuverable aircraft*.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2008)

kot said:


> *My main question is: How is it possible that this report's information is legitimate about the P-38 being persistently on the tail of the YAK-9 with the knowledge that the YAK-9 was strong at horizontal maneuvers. It is also true that the P-38 was not an amazingly maneuverable aircraft*.


PILOT SKILL


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

American pilots where much better trained than the Russian pilots and its always been that way.


----------



## kot (Mar 22, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> PILOT SKILL


OK.I'll take it.
But the result of the dogfight is 3-5.
From the begining YAKs had disadvantage:
- 12(P38) -10(Yak)
- low altitude(YAKs)

So why was that the result? IF *PILOT SKILL*


----------



## evangilder (Mar 22, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> American pilots where much better trained than the Russian pilots and its always been that way.



ROFL Are you kidding???

Have you spoken with any P-38 pilots that flew them during the war? I have. They had plenty of training in *single engine* aircraft. Their entire familiarization program with the P-38 was a half hour ride along, crouched in the radio compartment with the radios removed to familiarize themselves with the cockpit. After that, they were given aircraft and were in their own. 

One of the vets I interviewed stated that if he had an engine failure on takeoff in the first 20-40 hours of his time in the cockpit, he probably would have been killed. 

You need to flush yourself of the propaganda you have been spoon fed, and look at history with a neutral point of view.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 22, 2008)

kot said:


> OK.I'll take it.
> But the result of the dogfight is 3-5.
> From the begining YAKs had disadvantage:
> - 12(P38) -10(Yak)
> ...



Quite simple, the man in the cockpit is what ultimately makes the difference. That is how Filipino pilots were able to splash a few Zeros while flying P-26 Peashooters, or why the Finns were able to have aces in Brewster Buffalos. The same thing applies here.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

OK I'm really sorry evangilder about comments about the Russian training programs.

It does seem though that in this case the American's had better training and that allowed them to take the win. Without opening a whole new debat; would I be right in saying that the same thing was true over Korea with the MiG-15 and F-86. I'm thinking completely neutrally here.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 22, 2008)

2 P-38's were actually downed by the Yaks, another to flak. The USAAF reported 2 Yaks, 2 probables, 1 Yak damaged. Rall and Popkov in "Stalin's Eagles" reproduce the 82nd Fighter Group's combat report and other documents reporting this error to higher headquarters.

This seems a poor example to draw any conclusions from: both sides realized, the Soviets immediately (but had to defend the convoy the US was mistakenly strafing), US before the combat ended, that they were involved in a friendly fire incident. And it was just one incident.

There's no example of P-38's v Yak-9's in fully real combat, however there are dozens or hundreds of examples of the USAF and Soviet AF in combat just a few years after, in Korea from 1950-53. Though off topic for this discussion, that would probably be a better place to draw conclusions about relative combat capability in that general time period.

Re: Evangilder, as mentioned before those Filipino P-26 pilots were brave to go up against modern fighters, and downed one Japanese bomber, but no Zeroes.

On P-38 pilots with single engine training sent to P-38 squadrons that kind of stuff happened in 1942-3, wasn't as common by late 1944 which is when this incident occurred. And the 82nd was highly experienced as a group in late '44 (though surely had more and less experienced pilots within it). On the other side the Soviet flight leader, A.I. Kuldonov ended the war as 8th leading Soviet ace, 46 victories.

Joe


----------



## evangilder (Mar 22, 2008)

Not according to the official history of the Philippine Air Force.


> Most of those P-26s that had been stationed in the Philippines had been sold to the governments of the Philippines by the time of the Japanese attack. The Philippine government acquired 12 P-26As beginning in July of 1941. Some of these P-26s were serving with the 6th Pursuit Squadron of the Philippine Army Air Force based at Batangas Field at the time of the Japanese attack. Despite their total obsolescence, the Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack. One of the Philippine P-26s is credited with shooting down the first Japanese plane destroyed during the early attacks on the islands. The best-known action took place. Captain Jesus A. Villamor led the P-26As of the 6th Pursuit Squadron, the only ones of their type to see action in World War II, and they were flown with great courage by their Filipino pilots. On December 12, 1941, Villamor brought down a Mitsubishi G3M2 of the 1st Kokutai over Batangas. Lieutenant Jose Kare even managed to shoot down a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero with his obsolete Boeing on December 23.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 22, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Not according to the official history of the Philippine Air Force.


That's interesting they apparently use "Bloody Shambles" by Shores to check those claims v Japanese accounts. Usually P-26's are credited with Zeroes Dec 12 (didn't happen per Japanese accounts) and 23rd. Problem is, the latter incident happens to be an apparent error in "Shambles". Shores matches that Filipino claim which was apparently on the 23rd, with a Japanese loss on the 24th (PO1c T. Kikuchi of the Tainan Air Group, KIA, per other sources, no loss on the 23rd) saying there was no known American claim otherwise. But there was: US P35's engaged Zeroes the 24th same place the Japanese said the loss occurred, claiming one or two, apparently the victors over Kikuchi, and the only documented case where a *P-35* ever downed a Zero. Apparently no Zeroes were downed by P-26's.

As it mentions, Villamor's bomber claim Dec 12 does correspond to a loss of a 1st AG 'Nell'. The crew was captured, later freed by the Japanese, and flew one of the first deliberate suicide missions, against Port Moresby in New Guinea in 1942, to restore their honor.

Joe


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2008)

Well, the wording does leave it a bit mysterious as they have it. _Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack._ That is pretty vague, "some victories" and "during the first few days". I wasn't aware of the Japanese records from those events not jibing with the Philippine records. 

I certainly don't envy the poor bastards having to fly a P-26 against the Zero! It certainly isn't much of a match, that's for sure.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

Wait, why are US forces attacking Russians? (I just know I'm going to feel stupid for asking that when I hear the answer)


----------



## Marcel (Mar 23, 2008)

Probably a mistake. Happens all the time in a war, if you look at WWI and WWII (or any other war) history, you'll probably end up with a lot of other similar incidents.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 23, 2008)

Mistake, definitely. Per the reports in the source I mentioned above, mission over the former Yugoslavia by 15th AF P-38's, Nov 1944, fluid situation as the German evacuated and Soviets advanced into the country, 82nd FG on a mission to strafe any German motor transport found, mistook a Soviet vehicle convoy for German. They were then attacked by single engine a/c they immediately realized had red stars, but shot a couple down defending themselves, then with each side realizing it was mistake, the P-38's waggled their wings, Yak's acknowledged, and they dis-engaged.

Joe


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

JoeB said:


> 2 P-38's were actually downed by the Yaks, another to flak. The USAAF reported 2 Yaks, 2 probables, 1 Yak damaged. Rall and Popkov in "Stalin's Eagles" reproduce the 82nd Fighter Group's combat report and other documents reporting this error to higher headquarters.
> 
> This seems a poor example to draw any conclusions from: both sides realized, the Soviets immediately (but had to defend the convoy the US was mistakenly strafing), US before the combat ended, that they were involved in a friendly fire incident. And it was just one incident.
> Joe




Yeah, it was this first paragraph that made me think otherwise, and I'd missed the second...


----------



## kot (Mar 25, 2008)

Welcome to the official 82nd Fighter Group website


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 26, 2008)

Good topic


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Mar 27, 2008)

kot said:


> that the P-38 was not an amazingly maneuverable aircraft.



Pfft I beg to differ. 

I can't look them up now but I've read many accounts of Luftwaffe aces with excess of 50 kills become dumb-founded by the P-38's ability to out turn and zoom better than the 109's even at the same speed. 

Not that a P-38 really turns tight at all, but its Fowler flaps tend to give it much more lift for a smaller amount in drag compared to a plane with more conventional flaps. This lets it turn significantly FASTER though not TIGHTER.

More accounts of PTO Lightning pilots glorify the P-38's lack of torque allowing the plane to remain under control at near-stall speeds.


----------



## kot (Mar 28, 2008)

Okay guys, thanks everybody for answering my questions. But, if at possible, can you explain more thoroughly WHY the commander of IAP – who saw that particular fight from the ground especially mentioned in the report that the P38 was much more manuverable at the horizontal level and did not have a problem to sit on the tail of YAK9?

If we compare two american planes P38 and P51 Mustang – which one would be better at the horizontal manuvure if the skill level of the pilots are the same?

If the level of the American pilots was greater than the Russian pilots – why did they not shut down all Russian planes?


----------



## santosh (Mar 28, 2008)

P-38 were the worst planes in the pacific theatre..coz lots of them were shot down by the japanese zero.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 28, 2008)

santosh said:


> P-38 were the worst planes in the pacific theatre..coz lots of them were shot down by the japanese zero.



 

Your actually going to make the claim that the P-38 was the worst plane in the Pacific.

WOW.

From Wiki....

_The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the Pacific theater, where it proved ideally suited, combining excellent performance with very long range. The P-38 was used in variety of roles, especially escorting bombers at altitudes bettween 18-25,000ft. The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other USAAF fighter. Freezing cockpits were not a problem at low altitude in the tropics. While the P-38 could not out-maneuver the Mitsubishi Zero and most other Japanese fighters, its speed and rate of climb gave American pilots the option of choosing to fight or run, and its focused firepower was even more deadly to lightly-armored Japanese warplanes than to the Germans'._



From P-38 Lightning in Pacific Theatre

_The Lightning was ideally suited for the Pacific theatre. It possessed a performance markedly superior to that of its Japanese opponents. It possessed a range significantly better than that of the P-39s, P-40s and P-47s available in 1942 in the Southwest Pacific, and its twin engines offered an additional safety factory when operating over long stretches of water and jungle. The Lightnings proved to be extremely rugged and could take a lot of battle damage and still keep flying. Missions lasting 9, 10, or even 12 hours became routine, and many wounded Lightnings were able to limp home on only one engine. The maneuverability of the Lightning was inferior to that of its nimble Japanese opponents, but by the use of appropriate tactics--for example the avoidance of dogfighting at low altitudes and the use of fast diving attacks--enabled the P-38 squadrons in New Guinea and the Solomons to achieve impressive results. 

When compared with the Zero, the Lightning came off badly in terms of speed and maneuverability at medium and low altitudes, but had a far higher top speed, rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. When the P-38 tried to outturn a Zero at low altitudes, it usually ended up second best. However, when the unique attributes of the Lightning were used to best effect, the results were devastating. The best tactic was for the Lightnings to loiter at high altitudes and then dive down on Zero formations in a blaze of concentrated firepower, using the Lightning's impressive climbing rate to zoom back up out of harm's way. If this did not work, the wise Lightning Lightning pilot would then use his superior speed to make good his escape. _


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2008)

santosh said:


> P-38 were the worst planes in the pacific theatre..coz lots of them were shot down by the japanese zero.



I newbie would only say that or someone trying to be very funny.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2008)

santosh said:


> P-38 were the worst planes in the pacific theatre..coz lots of them were shot down by the japanese zero.



Have you ever had a severe head injury?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2008)

Joe,

He is right, the P-38 sucked!

So does the F-15, P-51, Hellcat, TA-152!

Didn't you know that? Lots of them all were shot down.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 28, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> OK I'm really sorry evangilder about comments about the Russian training programs.
> 
> It does seem though that in this case the American's had better training and that allowed them to take the win. Without opening a whole new debat; would I be right in saying that the same thing was true over Korea with the MiG-15 and F-86. I'm thinking completely neutrally here.



I'd heard something similar; individual initiative was not something that was taught to the Soviet pilots during the War. There are, of course, exceptions (Pokryshkin comes to mind) but, for the most part, Russian pilots were taught to fly fight as a group, so breaking formation to pursue an enemy was frowned upon. Very inexperienced pilots tended to keep flying straight level, or stick to their wingman, which made them easy prey for German (and, in this case, American) pilots. BTW, the source for my information is certainly not impeccable; it's Toliver Constable's _The Blond Knight of Germany_.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 28, 2008)

I would believe that SoD when it comes to tactics. My point was that the amount of training most P-38 pilots got for the type, was pretty pathetic.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 28, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> He is right, the P-38 sucked!
> 
> So does the F-15, P-51, Hellcat, TA-152!
> 
> Didn't you know that? Lots of them all were shot down.



Ok, your argument is too compelling and you have convinced me. The P-38 was a piece of crap.


Seriously though. Eric, your right about the training of the P-38 pilots. When I was looking for a little documentation to counter the fantastic theory that Santosh had, everywhere stated how the training they got was in a single engined plane until late '44.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2008)

I believe thats why more then a few pilots killed themselves in a P-38, not b/c it was a bad plane but b/c they never received the proper training how to fly it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2008)

In 44 the training was plenty good though.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 29, 2008)

That's correct, according to everything I have read.

I think we just got a new quote for Adler's siggy......


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 30, 2008)

> I'd heard something similar; individual initiative was not something that was taught to the Soviet pilots during the War. There are, of course, exceptions (Pokryshkin comes to mind) but, for the most part, Russian pilots were taught to fly fight as a group, so breaking formation to pursue an enemy was frowned upon.



It changed somewhere in the mid-43, when Russians got situation under control and better planes. I-15/I-16 duo, ŁaGG-3, MiG-3 and Yak-1/Yak-7 (even early Yak-9) simply sucked and were inferior even to relative old German planes (like Bf 109E-4). fact, that before the war Stalin ordered execution of most good officers did not helped much.

In such conditions Russians needed someone who can start, shot and land if he is luck enough to survive the flight. Typical flight training before sending pilot to the fight was... 3 hours!

It changed when better planes entered service (La-5FN, Yak-9 M and later Yak-9U) and better equipement (radios). Tactics and formations changed because of this from rather non elastic three planes formation (leader with radio, wingmens with receivers) to the more elastic 2 planes formation (both with radio). Near the end of the war the flight hours before sending to the front raised and in the fighter divisions served mostly pilots who were either trained by the new rules or survived the first part of the war (which mean - they were very good). I would say that (excluding different fighting doctrines and tactics) Russian pilots were not worse then americans.

BTW - American pilots, in opinion of polish pilots while quite enthusiastic, were not good trained. 



> But, if at possible, can you explain more thoroughly WHY the commander of IAP – who saw that particular fight from the ground especially mentioned in the report that the P38 was much more manuverable at the horizontal level and did not have a problem to sit on the tail of YAK9?



In opinion of russian fighter pilots Yak-9 (especially verions T and D/DD) were too heavy and lacked the manoeuvrability of Yak-1. They were better armed and armored, but not as maneuvrable as one may think. Suffered both the horizontal (higher wing loading) and vertical (lower power/weight ratio in pre Yak-9U planes) maneuvrability.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 30, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> I would say that (excluding different fighting doctrines and tactics) Russian pilots were not worse then americans.
> 
> BTW - American pilots, in opinion of polish pilots while quite enthusiastic, were not good trained.


In 1941 Soviet fighter were being downed at a very high ratio by German ones, and the US air arms were still at peace. Bt 1943 the Soviets had had two years to address that situation and the US air arms were just entering combat in Europe (very few US fighter units fought the Germans in 1942). I think 1943 might be the valid year for 'Polish pilots thought US ones enthusiastic but not well trained'. In 1944 US fighters were facing the bulk of the LW fighter force deep inside Germany and RAF(and Poles etc under their organization) were not there to watch, limited by their shorter legged fighters to areas of Occupied Europe areas where not much of the LW fighter force was operating anymore.

So, the green US units of 1943 by basic common sense were likely not as good as the most experienced and successful Soviet units of 1943. But how about later in the war when both had learned their lessons? Soviet and German loss stats show that even in 1944 Soviet fighters had a <1 exchange ratio v German fighters, with all the improved equipment, organization and trainng you correctly mentioned, apparently around 1:2 or poorer (a large % of Soviet fighter losses were 'failed to return' no other cause given so hard to say exactly). The US ratio by that time was considerably better. But, the conditions were not exactly the same, so debate can continue. Again though, the US and Soviet AF's fought one another directly, extensively, just 5 years after WWII, and that meeting did not appear to show parity between them either, not according again to the losses recorded by both sides, as in the LW/Soviet case, according to then-secret records since declassified by both.

Joe


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 31, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe,
> 
> He is right, the P-38 sucked!
> 
> ...





But the Ta 152 doesn't really work since iirc none was ever shot down, though they only made 11 kills as well. (going by memory)

I beleive Soren mentioned this on the *Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...* thread.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 31, 2008)

Zarathos,

I too have heard rumors of very low time pilots being sent into combat by the Soviets. That doesn't seem to line up with other reports. 
Osoaviakhim,(sort of an air force cadet training program) had over 100,000 pilots trained even before the start of hostilities.
Shortage of pilots never seems to have been a problem for the Russians, while shortage of planes was. In fact they had cadres of experienced pilots waiting their turn at the factories to get new planes as they rolled off the assembly lines. 
I've seen reports of anywhere from 300 to 500 hours for pilots before they were 'allowed' to join front line units. 
Of course there was a lot of dis-organization in the first year of the war, and a 3 hour pilot could have been sent up, but I think it is much more likely that they had 3 hours on a particular type, ie Yak or Mig, rather than 3 hours total time. We often hear the similar numbers quoted for BoB pilots, with sources saying pilots were sent up in Spitfires with less than 10 hours flight time. It seems that the 10 hour number was for total time at OTU, (Operation Training Unit) on Harvards and/or Spitfires. The pilots would have had previous training on Tiger Moths, Magisters etc. 

Soviet pilots considered the LaGGs and Yaks to be superior to Emil variants of the 109, in both horizontal and vertical maneuvers. They considered the F2/F4 109s to be better vertically compared to Soviet fighters, but similar horizontally. (they mistakenly thought they had better high alt performance when the captured F2 performed poorly at alt, but this was due to problems with that F2 plane). All the 109s had higher dive speeds and ceilings, and F and G models nearly always had a max speed advantage. 

A big problem for the Soviet pilots was ridgid tactical doctrine. When their job was escort, they absolutely were forbidden to leave the bombers, they could only chase off attacking fighters. That put them in a continual defensive position, always being attacked first. This is the same situation that effectively 'tied up' the Luftwaffe during BoB, except much more rigourously enforced and continued throughout the course of the war.

Agree with your assessement of Yak 9 compared to Yak 1. Yak 1 was only replaced in production with the Yak 3. I believe the Yak 9 would still have had a turn advantage over 109G6 and FW190s. It's interesing that some Luftwaffe aces said the Yaks were the master of horizontal and vertical maneuver, while some Soviet Aces say the same thing about the 109. Gunther Rall said: "Yak and LaGG, very good."


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 1, 2008)

kot said:


> Okay guys, thanks everybody for answering my questions. But, if at possible, can you explain more thoroughly WHY the commander of IAP – who saw that particular fight from the ground especially mentioned in the report that the P38 was much more manuverable at the horizontal level and did not have a problem to sit on the tail of YAK9?
> 
> If we compare two american planes P38 and P51 Mustang – which one would be better at the horizontal manuvure if the skill level of the pilots are the same?
> 
> If the level of the American pilots was greater than the Russian pilots – why did they not shut down all Russian planes?



If anything, the P-38 will turn faster than the P-51.. especially with flaps. Tighter, hell no. Faster, hell yea. The huge thrust and lower amount of drag produced for every lift co-efficient unit in the Fowler flaps (compared to the P-51s flaps) will likely allow the P-38 to retain more speed in the same given AoA... 

There are a bunch of instances where P-38's outturned 109 aces.. particularly in the MTO where, early on I hear, P-38 pilots had better training than in the ETO.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 1, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> If anything, the P-38 will turn faster than the P-51.. especially with flaps. Tighter, hell no. Faster, hell yea. The huge thrust and lower amount of drag produced for every lift co-efficient unit in the Fowler flaps (compared to the P-51s flaps) will likely allow the P-38 to retain more speed in the same given AoA...
> 
> There are a bunch of instances where P-38's outturned 109 aces.. particularly in the MTO where, early on I hear, P-38 pilots had better training than in the ETO.



P-38 pilots were flying combat missions against LW long before 8th AF (nearly a year before 55th FG fist mission) and in better climate (mid to low level) in North Africa and Italy for most missions... so experience was a more important factor in late 1943 timeframe. 

In fact the 82nd FG had 200 destroyed in the air one year before the top Mustang Group, the 354th and well ahead of the 56th and 4thFG in P-47s.

Also in fact the 82nd FG scored more air to air in the P-38 than both the 20th and 55th FG combined for their entire P-38 record from fall 1943 through July 44 when they converted to Mustangs.

As to performance, the P-38L is the only version that was basically equal to 51B/C/D and then probably less capable than the H. 

As to turn - this debate wanders all over the place. You could be the first to demonstrate that the two were flown in controlled environments in a controlled set of conditions to arrive at the conclusion. Could you point us to it? 

I suspect the prime value of the P-38L manuevering flap was to Decrease speed, with plenty of power available, and thus tighten the turn, then use the excellent accleration of the twin engines to accelerate quickly. 

The 51 flaps were not demonstrated to improve combat manuever performance in contrast because the cycling time on 10-20 degrees of flaps was longer than the 38L manuever flaps.. It would cut the radius by increasing drag but the 51 acceleration would be slower in comparison.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 1, 2008)

There is a pdf, R&M 2381, which i believe I found somewhere on Mike Williams site, that has some comparisons of Spitfire and Blenheim dogfighting capabilities. Of course most of the technical stuff in the report is pure Greek to me, but I thought it might be of some use in looking at the P38 turn. 

BTW, my limited understanding of aerodynamics tells me that turn radius is directly related to turn time, the faster you go, the bigger the radius, and it's the same for every plane, jumbo jet to Sopwith Camel. So according to that understanding, no plane can make a same diameter 'circle' faster than another, they have to turn tighter to turn faster. Am I wrong?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 1, 2008)

claidemore said:


> There is a pdf, R&M 2381, which i believe I found somewhere on Mike Williams site, that has some comparisons of Spitfire and Blenheim dogfighting capabilities. Of course most of the technical stuff in the report is pure Greek to me, but I thought it might be of some use in looking at the P38 turn.
> 
> BTW, my limited understanding of aerodynamics tells me that turn radius is directly related to turn time, the faster you go, the bigger the radius, and it's the same for every plane, jumbo jet to Sopwith Camel. So according to that understanding, no plane can make a same diameter 'circle' faster than another, they have to turn tighter to turn faster. Am I wrong?



Partly, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking. The varius aircraft will run into turn turn performance issues for several reasons.

The Centripetal forces, normalized to primary aircraft axis 'G' forces, are funtion of (mV>>2/radius). 

1. One aircraft or pilot may be able to sustain a higher G load (and still not 'run out of lift' as a consequence) at a Higher speed and bank angle for the same radius. To achieve this, he (and his aircraft) must be able to sustain the greater loads and also his aircraft must have a Clmax range great enough to successfully create enough lift at the higher angle of attack to offset gravity. 

You can see why a 90 degree bank with sustained altitude is impossible - there is no airfoil whose lift component vector opposite gravity can 'pull' in opposite direction enough to keep the airplane at same altitude..

So, in this case the radius could be the same but the a/c and pilot combo is capable of 'closing' with higher velocity (by running the same diameter faster) on the lower G condition aircraft - or the radius is reduced AND the aircraft is faster - but pulling more G's, steepening the bank angle, staying within Angle of Attack for Clmax and having an airframe/pilot combo capable of the extra G's. 

For the chasing aircraft who exceeds the Clmax, it stalls - for the chasing aircraft that can't handle the G's - he blacks out or the wings come off.

this is why use of G suits by Allied pilots were very important for similar performance a/c in turning manuevers or dive pull outs..

2.) aircraft that fall below the 'sustained level flight' Lift component (vector lift component opposite of Gravity) and/or thrust below combined drag components will descend in a spiral in that condition. The radius of the spiral will be greater than that of level flight preceeding that condition. 

The a/c capable of maintaining the same bank angle and speed and level flight will have an advantage over the one that can't. 

This is an area where a 109 flown by a skilled pilot at low altitude and speed will have an edge over the Mustang in this arena.

3.) as the bank angle increases, the incremental lift required to support level flight for that bank angle also raises induced drag to add to profile and parasite drag. If it is also still in a high G turn you will also get small drag increments from flight controls and you will probably have some elastic deformation of the wings which may change either local angle of attack or the pressure distribution over the wing.

The latter condition is allegedly the cause for the Fw 190 nasty stall chracteristics in a high G turn - when it occurred. 

Condition 3 is the area least susceptible to precision theoretical calculations and the flight profile most uncertain with respect to stability and control parameters. 

An airplane that 'hunts', oscillates or has other quirky characteristics is one the pilot has to baby the most at the most critical time.

I will ponder and see if I missed something important - I probably have.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 1, 2008)

Some a/c also can maintain a higher speed in turns than others in the same radius turn. (though this would also mean a higher G load) I'm not great with aerodynamics either (particularly quantitative) but generally it depends on the airfoil's CL (and any devices that alter it; ie slats or flaps) together with the wing loading you can find the lift loading, then there's the lift:drag (dependent on wing plan-form and AR), and power loading. (the high AR of the P-38's wing along with excellent power loading and twin prop wash would give an advantage, particularly in a sustained turn, though the high wing loading was only be partially mitigated by the P-38's flaps; though the P-51 had a low lift airfoil by comparison)

There re a lot of variables to consider, but at a glance I'd say that (in most conditions) the P-38J/L would turn faster and tighter than the P-51D. On another comparison (which I have seen actual statistics for) the F4U-4 with good power loading and a high lift airfoil, could turn tighter (ie smaller radius) but not faster (ie slower turn rate) than the P-38L. 

Also the fowler flaps on (most) P-38's were much more effective than other types of flaps.

Here:


----------



## drgondog (Apr 1, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Some a/c also can maintain a higher speed in turns than others in the same radius turn. (though this would also mean a higher G load) I'm not great with aerodynamics either (particularly quantitative) but generally it depends on the airfoil's CL (and any devices that alter it; ie slats or flaps) together with the wing loading you can find the lift loading, then there's the lift:drag (dependent on wing plan-form and AR), and power loading. (the high AR of the P-38's wing along with excellent power loading and twin prop wash would give an advantage, particularly in a sustained turn, though the high wing loading was only be partially mitigated by the P-38's flaps; though the P-51 had a low lift airfoil by comparison)
> 
> There re a lot of variables to consider, but at a glance I'd say that (in most conditions) the P-38J/L would turn faster and tighter than the P-51D. On another comparison (which I have seen actual statistics for) the F4U-4 with good power loading and a high lift airfoil, could turn tighter (ie smaller radius) but not faster (ie slower turn rate) than the P-38L.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 1, 2008)

Honestly, I can't prove the P-38's turning ability, and I can't prove that the the P-38s fought the 109s in a controlled environment. After all, every fight is different, though I remember reading somewhere that next to the P-40E, the P-38(F?) had the lowest stall speed of any US fighter. I hope someone knows which document I'm talking about  

Perhaps the P-38 turned faster because it slowed down faster than a P-51 but a wing slatted-109 which slows down quickly as well (compared to a P-51 in particular) should outturn a P-38 but many accounts state that this is not true. That is not to say that the P-38 indefinitely outturns a 109, I just get the impression that it does since the accounts I've seen support a tight turning 38. Plus you've got those counter-rotating props which don't create torque at low speeds. Pretty helpful not having that other force acting against you. 

However Galland did say the P-38 was easy meat, but many pilots had their opinions of other aircraft as well. 

Oh and did the P-38L not roll out of factories with the ability to produce 1,725 hp per engine? AFAIK the USAAF then lowered max. rpm to allow a production of only 1,600 hp. I'm sure the power-to-weight ratio for the P-38L was better than the P-38H. Are those 443 mph figures I've seen for the 38L running at 54" HG with full 1,725 hp/engine fake?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 2, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Honestly, I can't prove the P-38's turning ability, and I can't prove that the the P-38s fought the 109s in a controlled environment. After all, every fight is different, though I remember reading somewhere that next to the P-40E, the P-38(F?) had the lowest stall speed of any US fighter. I hope someone knows which document I'm talking about
> 
> *The problem with so many discussions when discussing performance is that unless one cites the specifics behind fact it usually results in questions.. for example in stall speed are we talking about landing with 20 degrees of flaps or level flight/flaps up? What gross weight, what altitude?
> 
> ...



The factory figures are usually well documented including weights and conditions..


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 2, 2008)

Well said Bill


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 2, 2008)

It is really complex, and the engines/booms would change the property of the wing.

You now more than I do about this.

But in anecdotal reports i seem to remember the P-38 being more agile in the horizontal than the p-51 and even had an edge over the 109. though I'm not sure what models these are comparing. (I think this was mid 1943)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> It is really complex, and the engines/booms would change the property of the wing.
> 
> You now more than I do about this.
> 
> But in anecdotal reports i seem to remember the P-38 being more agile in the horizontal than the p-51 and even had an edge over the 109. though I'm not sure what models these are comparing. (I think this was mid 1943)



KK - I think one of the advantages (overall) in this forum is that facts are either force fed, or anedotal comments are frequently challenged making it difficult to use phrases like 'best', 'far superior' (pick your favorite) without some heavy qualifications and/or unimpeachable sources. 

We all enter with a set of bias' and predjuice for a POV and most of us, myself specifically included, think a little more before opening mouth so to speak.

the P-38, in comparison with say the 109G2's should not have been more agile in the horizontal than the 109 at medium to low speeds.. just based on total drag, no boosted ailerons, no manuevering flaps, less Hp (relatively speaking) than the 109 - which also had slats to help out when it was pushed to stall threshold... Aircraft that are not exceptionally clean with nearly the same power loading and wing loading will tend to lose energy faster as they pull more G's - always a wildcard in a manuevering fight.

Theoretically this is why the early 47Cs and Ds should have stayed out of the low altitude, medium speed arena against the Fw 190 and Me 109. 

When it lost energy it took awhile to get it back. At high altitudes the pig put on lipstick and became an altogether different beast with Hp and lift to burn in comparison with the previously nimble lightweights... in other words in its original design element for which it was planned - high altitude. 

But I don't KNOW that personally but always open to the occsaional jewel that often surfaces here. I don't buy the thesis that the 38 was 'better' in horizontal than the 109 at low to medium altitudes where most of the 38 battles were fought in 42 and 43 in MTO... but I have been wrong before


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 2, 2008)

drgondog said:


> KK - I think one of the advantages (overall) in this forum is that facts are either force fed, or anedotal comments are frequently challenged making it difficult to use phrases like 'best', 'far superior' (pick your favorite) without some heavy qualifications and/or unimpeachable sources.
> 
> We all enter with a set of bias' and predjuice for a POV and most of us, myself specifically included, think a little more before opening mouth so to speak.
> 
> ...



* I don't believe the P-38 will do anything well versus most aircraft in a sustained turn fight. Some flight games seem to model this well. In many instances in Aces High II for example (I'm not using the game as proof of anything, just using it as an example of how it may be possible for maneuverability to be there one day and gone the next), I often play against my friend who is a 109/Ki-84 'pilot' so to speak in-game. During many encounters, it seems that I can follow his turns easily particularly in the vertical in the P-38J. But when it comes down to low level, flat turning, he WILL out turn me after about 4 revolutions. One there's any bit of vertical fighting in the equation (like a slightly vertical turn fight where the circle isn't flat) I'll likely win since it feels as though I can hold on to speed much better. Plus, it seems trendy for very high-wingloaded aircraft to keep lots of speed during a high speed turn and thus turn faster. The P-38 also has an extra advantage at very low speeds where a single engine aircraft would experience some torque effect. 

Oh yea, and I never use Wiki to cite my claims. That stuff if 30% incorrect it seems. I usually use Osprey Aces books or this site: WWII Aircraft Performance *


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 3, 2008)

Alright so I did some research today. I looked up some AFDU trials on the P-47C versus the P-38F. The P-38F has a slightly higher power loading at full fuel/ammo weight of about 0.17 hp/lb while the P-47C has about 0.15 hp/lb at full fuel/ammo weight. 

The P-47C however, has a lighter wingloading of 46.5 lb/sq ft. and the P-38F has it at 48.6 lb/sq ft. 

The AFDU trials say that the P-38F turns slightly better than the P-47C and even better to the right because of the Thunderbolt's torque. The trial says that the Mustang X (a Merlin 65-fitted P-51 prototype) turned identically with the P-47C (I believe none of these tests were done with flaps). 

Further, the AFDU trials state that the slightly heavier but more powerful P-38G out turns the P-38F easily especially with combat flaps settings. 

This does NOT prove that the P-38 turns better than the 109 for example but it does show that, under a controlled environment, the P-38 has the ability to surprise the enemy and does have at least, adequate turning performance. I wouldn't be surprised if a P-38H or J would out turn the 109 at least on 50% of encounters.


----------



## smg (Apr 3, 2008)

p-38
Performance
Maximum speed: 443mph War Emergency Power-1725 [email protected](28,000ft)(Courtesy of Lockheed-Martin Corp.) 
414mph on Military [email protected] 54inHG (667 km/h at 7,620 m)

Stall speed: 105 mph (170 km/h) 
Range: 1,300 mi combat, over 3,300 mi (5,300 km) ferry (1,770 km / 3,640 km) 
Service ceiling 44,000 ft (13,400 m) 
Rate of climb: maximum: 4,750 ft/min (1,448 m/min) 
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260.9 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg) 
Turn Radius: At Eglin Field in 1942, the P-38 was said to have an "equal or tighter radius of turn from 15,000 ft (4,600 m) on up" against the P-51, P-40, P-47 and other aircraft. The tests were conducted with the engine power restricted, which means the P-38F that was tested was probably a bit more maneuverable. Further versions of the P-38 were even more agile, especially the P-38L. (The rate of roll was also found too slow at high speeds and medium at low speeds.)

yak 9
Lift-to-drag ratio: 13.5 
Maximum speed: 367 mph at altitude (591 km/h) 
Range: 845 miles (1,360 km) 
Service ceiling 30,000 ft (9,100 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,690 ft/min (13.7 m/s) 
Wing loading: 37 lb/ft² (181 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.17 hp/lb (0.28 kW/kg) 

it sound like te p38 is a beter plane bout it olso dipends on the pilot that flys them don u tink


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 3, 2008)

Yes but we're trying to figure out if the P-38 really can out turn aircraft like the 109 or Yak. And most trials are done with test pilots of generally the same skill. 

I concluded that it cannot turn tighter but, with the mentioned data in my last post, it seems possible that the P-38 will turn faster due to such factors like thrust, inertia and a lot of other stuff I don't yet fully understand. 

But there's a lot of controversy around this subject. That's why no one really knows if, given equal pilots, a P-38 will out turn 109's in most conditions. Judging on both 109 and P-38 accounts, it seems quite possible but not without some speed and flap use.

Where did you get that data? it states that the P-38L is BETTER than the P-38F (which is probably better than the P-38G and thus better than the H) despite being much heavier. But watch out for any Wikipedia stuff or random internet figures. They're not specific enough and are often wrong. Though have been shown evidence that the P-38L does have a good amount more hp than the other P-38's and had enough performance to easily compete with the likes of the F4U-4 and Spitfire XIV. The official USAAF figures restricted the maximum rpm of the P-38L however and so the L model performed a little worse if anything compared to the J.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 6, 2008)

kot said:


> *My main question is: How is it possible that this report's information is legitimate about the P-38 being persistently on the tail of the YAK-9 with the knowledge that the YAK-9 was strong at horizontal maneuvers. It is also true that the P-38 was not an amazingly maneuverable aircraft*.


Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I decided to skip reading through the entire thread.

Who said the P-38 was not a manuverable aircraft.
Wasn't that part of the idea of the counter rotating props?
...also, it had two engines. What's to stop a pilot from cranking the power on the outboard engine a little, during a turn, in order to get the 38 to come around quicker (or power down the inboard engine, whichever would work better)...could also adjust one prop with a slightly different pitch for similar effect (just remember to reset upon completing turn  )


Elvis


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 6, 2008)

I think that MIGHT help every now and then but 'throttle jockeying' as it was known, pretty much just increases yaw and torque on one side. You'd might as well just use rudder.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2008)

smg said:


> p-38
> Performance
> Maximum speed: 443mph War Emergency Power-1725 [email protected](28,000ft)(Courtesy of Lockheed-Martin Corp.)
> 414mph on Military [email protected] 54inHG (667 km/h at 7,620 m)
> ...




Where did you get this data?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 8, 2008)

looks like Wikipedia. 

Not the best.

Btw, I was reading my F4U-1 series manual when I came across a paragraph that suggested to lift the aircraft off with full flaps under heavy loads. I also remember seeing FAA Corsairs in B&W film lift off with full flaps.

Question:
Was it only the Corsair with this ability or was it logical to lift other fighters off with full flaps? I know Spits never did it because their thin split flaps (placed almost at the trailing edge) caused more drag than lift at full 48 degrees.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

That data seems fairly close. 

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


P-38L Speed Chart
P-38L Roll Chart
P-38L Climb Chart
P-38L Redline Chart


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Not according to the official history of the Philippine Air Force.



Hi Evanglider

Official Histories can be wrong, in fact they often are. i remember some years ago reading about O'Connors victory in Cyrenaica (against the Italians, in 1940-41), it triumphantly trumpeted the massively one-sided casualtiy list, quoting some minute casualty figure for the British forces. I came away, with this awe of the massive superiority of British military prowess.

Years later, I came across the same article, but by then had two university degrees, and the wealth of twenty years of research and gaming. I realized what the official history had done. it had not lied, lets put that in the picture from the start. And in terms of general trends it was correct. O'Connors victory in Cyrenaica, was an impressive victory. And the casualty figures for the british were correct (more or less). But the British forces engaged in the early battles were a relatively minor contribution to the battle. The majority of casualties were suffered by the Dominion and Indian forces. British military prowess was not quite as good as the history would have the reader believe.

Now, I am going to hazard a few guesses in regard to the issue at hand. i am guessing firstly that the pilots of these planes were not filipino, but Americans, being paid by the filipinos. If the pilots had the necessary prowess as you say, it is hard to see these being filipinos, with perhaps just a few months of non-combat experience. however, if they were American, they would in all probability have a much greater amount of flying time

Secondly, nearly every Japanese plane in 1941-42 were reported as Zeroes. It could just as easily be Nates, or perhaps even Claudes. The Japanese had captured advance air bases very early, so as to allow their shorter ranged fighters the ability to participate in the battle. 

Thirdly, it may well have been Zeroes, but if those zeroes were operating from Formosa, they would have been at the limits of their range. They may have been carrying drop tanks. All of which would severely limit the performance of the zeroes

Some years ago, I read claims made on behalf of the allies, claiming that in the first months of the war, more than 500 Japanese aircraft were shot down over Burma from December through to February (I think). It was a relatively "official history". But these claims have to be seriously questioned. The japanese did not have that many aircraft operating over burma, The admitted losses by the japanese are a fraction of those claimed by their opponents, and lastly, other western sources put total Japanese combat losses at a far lower level to the numbers claimed. I am not in a position to verify one way or anaother, but I can say it is always risky to develop an hypothesis on the basis of just one spurce.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

Hi Claidemore

I doubt if there is a theatre where more misinformation is prevalent than the eastern front. People (including myself), need to be pretty careful when making claims.

I have a book Hardesty "Red Phoenix- the rise of Soviet Air force 1941-45", in which he constantly attacks the gross mis-reporting that goes on more or less as a national pastime in the western accounts, when assessing Soviet capability.

For example, Hardesty reports the German air losses at Kursk as 854, whilst 566. I wont bore you with his sources, but they look impressive. If he is even half right Soviet rigidity and poor training sure seems to pay off. 

The Soviets were inflexible, but the re-organaizations under Novikov in 1942 were beginning to start paying off by 1943. Soviet airpower began to really flex its muscles from Hursk, and never really looked back from there.

I have another book which I hold in some regard, "Stopped At Stalingrad- The Luftwaffe and hitlers Defeat In the east" by JSA Hayward. Has impressive references, and adopts the line that the LW was almost unstoppable in 1942, but by the end of that year, its operational status had sunk so low, and the Soviet capability grown so much, that the defeat of the LW co-incided more with the Stalingrad battle, rather than the Kursk. He concedes some recovery in the first months of 1943, but insufficient to offset the increases in Soviet capability. He states operational readiness (the key number for the east front) as 71 % in 6/42, dropping to 35% in December, rising to something under 50% in 1943, and then sinking again after Kursk. How can the nazis hope to compete against a force 4 or five times its size, when half its aircraft cant even fly, and are strung out all across the front


----------



## Elvis (Apr 12, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> I think that MIGHT help every now and then but 'throttle jockeying' as it was known, pretty much just increases yaw and torque on one side. You'd might as well just use rudder.



True, but what about used _with_ the rudder.

I realize in the heat of battle this isn't always the prudent descision, or one that may even occur to anyone, but if someone _really_ knew their P-38, they may have used that to their advantage..._even if they never told anyone else about it_.




Elvis


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2008)

Parsifal, I see what you are saying, but making a guess that the pilots were American if the claims are true is pure speculation. While I would agree that the Americans had better training and more experience, the Filipino pilots were fighting for their own homes, with their families in danger as well. Never underestimate the tenaciousness of a man fighting to defend his own home and family. In some cases, they will fight harder and take bigger risks because of what is at stake.

I have seen that written in several places, but sometimes several sources are based on a single source, so the jury is still out on it. The only point I was making is that no matter what the stats are on the individual aircraft, it comes down to the guy in the cockpit and luck. In many cases, it was a case of who saw whom first, regardless of the aircraft in the fight.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 12, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'd heard something similar; individual initiative was not something that was taught to the Soviet pilots during the War.


Actually the soviet tactics gave much more freedom and initative to the wingmen as in the luftwaffe, where the wingman mostly gave cover to the attacking plane.



> There are, of course, exceptions (Pokryshkin comes to mind) but, for the most part, Russian pilots were taught to fly fight as a group, so breaking formation to pursue an enemy was frowned upon.


I beg to differ - in some flying schools (Kacha, Orenburg) was rather poor, in some - decent to good with 200 flying hours.


> ... or stick to their wingman,


I believe this is actually the only way to survive for a rookie in combat  



> BTW, the source for my information is certainly not impeccable; it's Toliver Constable's _The Blond Knight of Germany_.


you can't call THIS a source, don't you


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Never underestimate the tenaciousness of a man fighting to defend his own home and family. In some cases, they will fight harder and take bigger risks because of what is at stake.
> 
> I have seen that written in several places, but sometimes several sources are based on a single source, so the jury is still out on it. The only point I was making is that no matter what the stats are on the individual aircraft, it comes down to the guy in the cockpit and luck. In many cases, it was a case of who saw whom first, regardless of the aircraft in the fight.



True enough....many sources report that in 1939 the PAF was basically demolished on the first day. That is now known to be totally untrue. Units of the PAF were fighting more than a week later, and quite effectively. German air losses over Poland are variously reported as anywhere between 200 and 550 aircraft lost, depending on who you believe. My best estimate, based on a number of different reports, is that the germans lost in the vicinity of 250 aircraft 9combat losses, including losses to AA). An impressive number can be attributed to the little P-11cs, which in many ways are only slightly better than the P-26's

So your claims are entirely plausible, but in my opinion would need some additional research before breaking out the trumpets and demanding a fanfare. 

Regards

Michael


----------



## JoeB (Apr 12, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I am going to hazard a few guesses in regard to the issue at hand.
> 
> 1. i am guessing firstly that the pilots of these planes were not filipino, but Americans, being paid by the filipinos.
> 
> ...


You're guessing though on a number of issues where the information is actually known. I briefly covered the circumstances of that Philippine AF P-26 claim of a Zero downed, Dec 23 1941, above already, but to expand and reiterate:
1. Definitely Filipino pilots, the pilot credited with that victory was Lt. Jose Kare.
2. True, there was a tendency in popular accounts to label all Japanese fighters Zeroes, but less true wrt to actual pilot reports at the time, although the lack of a uniform designation system caused confusion. That was the reason for the 'nickname' system, which appeared later. On December 23 there were Army Type 97's ('Nate') operating from bases in northern Luzon, and Navy Zero's operating from Legaspi in southern Luzon, the claim was in southern Luzon. Navy Type 96's ('Claude') conducted the first air attack on the Philippines against Davao from the carrier Ryujo Dec 8 but were not opposed, saw no air combat action in the PI.
3. Again these would have been Tainan Air Group Zeroes based at Legaspi.

However, as noted above the Tainan suffered no losses December 23. Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" mistakenly 'possibly' matches this claim to the Tainan AG's loss on the 24th (PO1C Toshio Kikuchi) stating that otherwise no Allied claims would explain it, however there was in fact a claim by US P-35's the 24th in circumstances matching the Zero loss (v. one P-35 so badly damaged it was wrecked on landing). So there were apparently no victories over Zeroes by P-26's. Again as mentioned previously traditional Allied accounts have also claimed 2 Zeroes downed by P-26's Dec 10; that combat was v the 3rd Air Group (the Zeroes were flying from Formosa at that point) but it suffered no losses in fact. The website Evang referenced modifies the Filipino claims to be in line with the two-sided accounts in "Bloody Shambles", which is a laudable general principle for official histories, way too many easily discountable one sided claims from WWII are still stubbornly quoted as if facts. But again in this case it's an unusual error in that book, no known Zero loss corresponds to that claim, and the records for JNAF fighter operations in the Philippines in 1941 are relatively detailed and apparently fairly complete (those of JAAF fighter ops in PI 1941-42 are much less complete, but again it's not likely that plane was a Type 97 given the location).

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

So Joe, you seem to be saying that the claims by the P-26 guys are questionable? if so, no argument. I think it highly unlikley.

BTW am impressed with your detailed knowledge of the subject. i dont have the benefit of that.


----------



## Der_blaue_Ritter (May 6, 2008)

In the late 1960's, I was looking through the Kriegstagebuch of Luftflotte 6, which covered Czechoslovakia in the Spring of 1945, and I saw a report of P-38's shooting down Russian fighters. This may have taken place on April 2nd. The Russians didn't reach Vienna until the 13th. Then, in the early '70's, I was working as a carpenter in Georgetown (D.C.) when I heard one of the guys in a hardware store talking about P-38's tangeling with Fw 190's. I knew his outfit must have been flying out of Italy, so I asked him if he knew anything about this incident. He had been on that mission! He told me he was flying top cover with his unit when they spotted a "German" convoy. 
Part of the P-38 force went down and started shooting up the vehicles which had large red stars painted on them! The Russians called their own fighters in and that led to multiple dog-fights. A real mess. I really should have followed through on this story with him, but I blew it. I didn't get his name or his unit's ID. The commander of the P-38's, a Major, I believe, was really
gung-ho for getting in some action before the war ended. Instead he was stripped of his rank on the airfield in front of his pilots!


----------

