# Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L



## MacArther (Feb 18, 2006)

Lets assume that somewhere over Italy these two combatants met. Creature comforts aside (where the P 38 lacked without the heating system), which plane would you prefer to be flying? Why? I would take the P 38 because once I had a good deflection shot or direct line of fire on the Bf109, it would all be over (depending on where I shot). I don't claim to be an expert on how dog fights turn out, so what do you guys think? Would the G10 or K4 simply outfly and out-gun the P38, or would the P38's central amament spell the downfall for another German fighter?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2006)

P-38 definately...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

P-38...


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 18, 2006)

It depends It's been reported that the Me/Bf-109G/K had some advantage above 30,000ft. The 20th FG felt the P-38s were even from 20,000 - 30,000ft and better below 20,000ft.

This was primarily early models but Stienhoff the German comander of Sardinia told Galland (then general of fighters) that the "Lightning had clrear superority in speed and maneuverability". The P-38 were flying from Africa at this time.

I'd choose the P-38

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 18, 2006)

P-38 for me too...


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

The P-38 definitely had the superior armament compared to the 109, thats for sure. The P-38 was also superior to the G-10 in straight out speed, and enjoyed a distinct advantage over both 109's in dive acceleration.

As for maneuverability though, the P-38 doesn't stand a chance, its easily out-maneuvered by the more agile Bf-109G-10 and K-4, both having a clear advantage in turn-rate, roll-rate, and climb rate over the P-38.

So all in all, if I was flying the P-38 I'd rely on B&Z tactics, while if I'm flying the 109 G-10 or K-4 I'd try to dogfight the P-38.

With that having been said, I'd be most comfortable flying the Bf-109K-4 for sure.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 18, 2006)

I thought the P38 out-handled the Me in low-speed engagements?


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

Not even close!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2006)

This comes down to combat altitude and advantage.... If it was a neutral engagement with two equally talented pilots, I would give it to the -109...

The ordinary -109 pilot should be able to force the -38 pilot to fight his battle, and seeing how the ordinary -109 pilot can combat his aircraft better than the ordinary -38 pilot, I have to agree with Sorens summation...


> So all in all, if I was flying the P-38 I'd rely on B&Z tactics, while if I'm flying the 109 G-10 or K-4 I'd try to dogfight the P-38.


Bottom line, get the enemy in posistion to defend himself against your tactics....

My Grandfather said many times, "Stay offensive; defensive pilots die easily..."


----------



## Erich (Feb 19, 2006)

hasn't this dead horse been covered in the past with pointless comparisons of what if's ? geez guys why do you persist like this ? from about 1 page of good materials then runs amuck with 4 pages of specs which are pointless as well as warped commentaries withou a vet from either side being able to give their own opinions, and granted this is really what is needed to make this a solid debate and not fruitless arguments which are the norm.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2006)

Yes it has Erich... 

In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency... No matter how good u are, someone out there is better...


----------



## Twitch (Feb 19, 2006)

2 point to ponder- besides the P-38 pilot being cold the defroster system was so poor it made visibility or lack of a dangerous gambit. Ever drive a car with a crummy heat/defrost system? Yeah it's miserable except no one is sneaking up shooting at you.

The P-38 had no "central armament advantage." The K-4 had a pair of excellent, high velocity 15mms in the upper cowl and either a Mk 103 or 108 30 mm in the prop hub.

I agree with you Erich- these banal fantasy blind dates for aircraft are simply a bunch of spec thrown around. Good pilots make kills not performance specs! Let's sit back and watch, man!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Yes it has Erich...
> 
> In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency... No matter how good u are, someone out there is better...



YEP!! 

*Pilot Proficiency*


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 19, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I thought the P38 out-handled the Me in low-speed engagements?



Acording to Stienhoff yes, Acording to the 20th FG below 20,000ft, about equal from there to 30,000ft and a little behind from there up.

But Les, Eric, and flyboy said it the best, the planes performance made it possible but its the pilots proficiency that makes the difference.
The P-38L had great acceleration, one of the very best in WWII, and a very fast controllable dive.
It could climb to 20,000ft in 5min WEP and 7 in METO and is still climbing at 1,000ft/min at 35,000ft, METO 17,400lbs.
Roll rate was average until 325mph where it increased while almost all others were decreasing.
All those who flew the P-38 felt it was an exceptionaly acrobatic plane
Speed was 414-416 in METO and as high as 442 in WEP definitely in the hunt.

Thats what the pilot started with easily in the range of all other top fighters of that time, though my research indicates that only ~ 30-45% of the pilots that flew her were able to make use of her true potential against probably 65% of the average single engine fighter of thr era.

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 19, 2006)

Twitch said:


> 2 point to ponder- besides the P-38 pilot being cold the defroster system was so poor it made visibility or lack of a dangerous gambit. Ever drive a car with a crummy heat/defrost system? Yeah it's miserable except no one is sneaking up shooting at you.
> 
> The P-38 had no "central armament advantage." The K-4 had a pair of excellent, high velocity 15mms in the upper cowl and either a Mk 103 or 108 30 mm in the prop hub.
> 
> I agree with you Erich- these banal fantasy blind dates for aircraft are simply a bunch of spec thrown around. Good pilots make kills not performance specs! Let's sit back and watch, man!



The 15mm cowl MG 151/15 is a MYTH.

Operational 109G/Ks were NEVER, repeat NEVER, fitted with 15mm guns. There simply wasn't enough room. The standard armament after the G-6 was a pair of 13.2mm MG 131 HMGs in the cowling, with a high rate of fire but relatively low muzzle velocity and light shell weight compared to other heavy machine guns. Even then type produced significant bulges in the cowling.

For comparison, the MG 131 weighted 17 kg by itself and around 20-21 kg installed. A MG 151/15 weighted 42 kg by itself and around 48-50 kg installed.

The nose mounted Mk 108 was a bomber destroyer cannon, not really an anti fighter weapon. It had quite a low initial velocity (~505 m/sec) and high trajectory. One hit would almost gaurentee a kill, but it was quite difficult to score hits with it in a manouver fight. 

In terms of armament effectiveness against fighters, I'd definately have to give this one to the P-38.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 20, 2006)

Whatever fantasy guns you desire to put on the 109K please note that they are fuselage mounted so there is NO advantage to the P-38's armament.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 20, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Whatever fantasy guns you desire to put on the 109K please note that they are fuselage mounted so there is NO advantage to the P-38's armament.



Nothing 'fantasy' about it.

Getting in front of either fighter was obviously a bad idea, but the advantage still lies witth the P-38 here.

4 M2s firing at 750-850 rpm and 1 20mm firing at 600-700 rpm would be better than 2 Mg 131s firing at 850 rpm and a single Mk 108 at 600 rpm. Higher rate and weight of fire, no prop synchronisation and better ballistics and range.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 20, 2006)

I agree.....


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

Getting in front of any fighter is generally a bad idea...


----------



## Twitch (Feb 20, 2006)

"...the P38's central amament spell the downfall for another German fighter?"

The original poster mentioned the P-38''s "central armament," as an advantage. The 109 has the same "central armament" so there is no advantage. Had nothing to do with how many or whatever guns you want to mount.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 20, 2006)

Theres an advantage to having a more heavily armed central armament... 

The -109 does not have the same central armament as the -38, therefore, advantage P-38.....


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2006)

The P-38 L was superior to the Bf 109 G-10 in all-out speed?

How come?

In fact, both German versions, G-10 and K-4 are faster than this Lighting. At about the 25,000 ft. altitude we have the following facts:

*P-38 L:* 414 mph=666km/hr

*G-10:* 429 mph= 690 km/hr

We have a +/- 15 mph top speed difference in favor of the G-10.

The K-4, in the various boosts it served, has even a clearer advantage in the maximum speed department over the P-38.

The G-5,-6,-14/AS versions were faster than this particular version of the P-38, making 424 mph at altitude.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 21, 2006)

I'm no expert, but I really doubt that the G10/K4 and the P38 would be using full power during combat situations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

Depending on the scenario, they'd use full power but many not see max. airspeed....

This is very hypothetical....


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2006)

Your right Udet, I had the P-38's speed as 441mph.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 21, 2006)

Well, the P-38 was a very dangerous ennemy in the Mediterranena and especially in the PTO, where combat distances were longer and japanese fighter could not dive with any american fighter.

In Europe it's performance was badly affected by the insufficient coolant, the cockpit would freeze and the pilot could not see a thing. The engines would suffer a lot of failures, and the buffeting problems meant that it was not capable of following a Bf-109/Fw-190 in a dive. Even if it had the best climb rate among US fighters it was still lower than the advanced Bf-109/Fw-190 IIRC.

Regards.


----------



## Udet (Feb 21, 2006)

Soren: that is correct!

Although I can tell of the accounts of some German pilots who affirmed the P-38 could be a very tough enemy, I know of other opinions telling the Lightning was the less troublesome craft in the Allied fighter menu.

Again, any of the German fighters which encountered it were in my view superior planes.


----------



## gaussianum (Feb 21, 2006)

At high altitude, the p-38 (don't know if this was solved in the L model), produced a pair of white contrails, that were visible for miles.
That , and the fact that it was easy to identify by enemy pilots, since it looked like no other fighter, put it in a less favourable tactical situation. It was quite probably a disadvantageous one.

I would pick the Me-109 K-4, if I was an expert.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2006)

Because it looked unique, it was also an advantage when friendlies were around. Contrails are produced when the weather patterns are just so. At higher altitudes, just about any WWII aircraft produced contrails.


----------



## gaussianum (Feb 21, 2006)

By the way, didn't allied fighters have the IFF system installed? That would probably give them a fair tactical advantage, when identifying enemies was difficult.

Why didn't the germans copy that system? Was it such a difficult technical hurdle? They probably didn't know about it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 21, 2006)

The different appearance of the -38's twin booms was both a positive and a negative... 

I know that Bartles layed several of his claims on this difference.... He didnt have to wait until his visual identification was confirmed, he just initiated a bounce and basically eliminated the dogfight...


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 21, 2006)

IFF is a electronic beacon that highlights or adds an electonic signature to your blip on search radar since no dayfighters had radar it would not be of any help its initial purpose was to enable the fighter controllers (ground radar) to identify hostile from friendly a/c


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

Erich said:


> from about 1 page of good materials then runs amuck with 4 pages of specs which are pointless as well as warped commentaries withou a vet from either side being able to give their own opinions, and granted this is really what is needed to make this a solid debate and not fruitless arguments which are the norm.....



I disagree:

The Vets views are going to be biased. Even if their plane was shot down, they might blame their own failings on their craft.

On paper specs can also be dodgy.

I like these discussions and learn a lot from them, also even manage to teach other people something sometimes.  




lesofprimus said:


> In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency



True.


Thanks for the info again wmaxt.  




Twitch said:


> The original poster mentioned the P-38''s "central armament," as an advantage. The 109 has the same "central armament" so there is no advantage. Had nothing to do with how many or whatever guns you want to mount.





Jabberwocky said:


> Higher rate and weight of fire, no prop synchronisation and better ballistics and range.



I agree with Jabberwocky, sorry Twitch.



alejandro_ said:


> the buffeting problems meant that it was not capable of following a Bf-109/Fw-190 in a dive.



Yes, but like vs the Spifire, the wings could break off the Me in a long dive, reducing this advantage.

The P38 had it's problems, but so did the 'Schmitt.

IMHO the Fork-Tailed Devil and Me were both 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Yes, but like vs the Spifire, the wings could break off the Me in a long dive, reducing this advantage.



Yeah, you certainly teached us something there...  

Schwarz, the 109's wings could take over 12 G's without failing ! (Thats more than most of the fighters of WWII)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

_taught_ us something, _taught_ us something! - Only kidding. 

I know the Emil's wings were flimsy, this problem may well have been sorted on the Gustav or even Freidrich? I honestly don't know - just covering all possibilities.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2006)

No you DON'T know Schwarz, cause the Emil's wings weren't flimsy at all ! You're mistaking its wings with the Bf-108's !


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

Here is my source:

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/FW/Bob/Best.htm

Explained technically.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2006)

That site is full of myths and untruth's, German pilots did in no way ever question the structural resilience of the 109's wings, especially considering it was structurally more sound than most Allied fighters. Its an untrue myth, and its a stupid one too. 

Next there's the fact that the 109 actually has thicker wings than the Spitfire !

And here's the worst pile of BS written on the site: "_that the 109 would have to pull up sooner or later, and when they did pull up it was done gently to avoid overstressing the thin wings, which was a genuine weakness of the design_." This is completely and utterly untrue !


----------



## MacArther (Feb 23, 2006)

With me, its a tough call. I like the 109K-4 and on ward, but the P38 is also a big favorite of mine. However, if pressed I would have to say that I would go with the P38, because I wouldn't have to worry about lining the shots up as much, because the guns are in the nose and not the wings (although the same can be said of the 109K-4). That, and I would much rather have four .50s in the nose than two 13mms in the cowling, the reason being I have a higher weight of fire (I think, not good with physics and math) and more fire power pouring out per minute than two guns.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 23, 2006)

The obvious question is: if their situations in 1944/45 had been reversed, which would you of rather flown?


P-38 as a bomber interceptor is a pretty good proposition:

Excellent rate of climb. Not as good as the 109 but it still approaches 4000 fpm.

Excellent speed at high altitude. Those turbosuperchargers keep the engine at peak power for a long time.

Reasonable firepower. 109 with a 30mm Mk 108 probably wins out here as a bomber destroyer, but 1x20mm and 4 x 12.7mm. Adding 20mms to the 109s wings killed it manouverability, but may it a lethal bomber hunter.

Long loiter time. Wins out over the 109 here, as it can stay aloft for 4 hours and make long runs at high speed if the bomber formation doglegs away from the interception point.

Good landing characteristics: tricycle landing gear, low stall speed and a very gentle stall due to counter-rotating props mean that landing accidents would be less likely than on the famously difficult 109. 

The negatives would be:

Expense: With its size, weight and twin engines, the P-38 would be much more expensive than the 109. So not as much production and more expensive to repair.

Pilot training: To get the best out of single engined fighters like the 109 required less training than the complex P-38. The LW didnt have the luxury of long training peroids, so would of thrown in pilot with relatively less training then the USAAF did in the ETO, which wasn't that much anyway.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2006)

"Expense: With its size, weight and twin engines, the P-38 would be much more expensive than the 109. So not as much production and more expensive to repair."

If were talking about mid 1944, then the production line is operating full speed and spewing out P38's as fast as ferry pilots could get them to the operating bases.

The cost to build any of the US built aircraft was never an issue.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> "Expense: With its size, weight and twin engines, the P-38 would be much more expensive than the 109. So not as much production and more expensive to repair."
> 
> If were talking about mid 1944, then the production line is operating full speed and spewing out P38's as fast as ferry pilots could get them to the operating bases.
> 
> The cost to build any of the US built aircraft was never an issue.



Correct, in fact the WPB increased P-38 production by adding the Consolidated-Vultee plant in Nashvill in September '44, they produced 113 P-38Ls. During the war cost wasn't a big issue, once the war was over cost was everything.

The P-38Ls top speed is not 414 thats at military power. There is an AAF report of 441mph and a lockheed graph at the same speed
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html This site also gives the 414mph in military power 1425hp. Many maybe most P-38J/Ls were limited to 1600hp which would still have put them in the 430-435mph range. Both Allison and Lockheed certified the 111/113 engines for 1725hp, its not clear wheather that power was ever released to the field officialy. Both Lockheed and Allison had people in the field to assure max performance was achieved so I'm sure it happened at least a few times.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > "Expense: With its size, weight and twin engines, the P-38 would be much more expensive than the 109. So not as much production and more expensive to repair."
> ...



Great Info wmaxt! I'm putting out a guess - You think Lockheed (and possibly the AAF) "lowballed" the P-38's top speed becuase of the compressibility issue?


----------



## book1182 (Feb 25, 2006)

No doubt about it the P-38 had speed but could it really stand a chance against the more agile single engine airplanes? I would think the Me-109 would be able to out roll to it's advantage.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 25, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great Info wmaxt! I'm putting out a guess - You think Lockheed (and possibly the AAF) "lowballed" the P-38's top speed becuase of the compressibility issue?



I really don't know but I suspect a lot of it is in the manner of AAF testing. Example: The 1942 test of the P-38F, P-51, P-40F and P-47D reported "The P-38 had an equal or shorter radius of turn...from 15,000ft up. "It would outclimball other types in the test". When the speed part of the test came around they limited the manifold pressure to 40.5" which gave 392mph @ 25,000ft. This test concludes, "The P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station". Later the G/H models were not as agile and did not get such a high rating.
Another test, P-38L, on the Spitfire Performance page is listed at 416mph but again only 1,475hp.

It could be pilots that had heard rumors and were not familiar, with the P-38, enough to get the best out of it. It didn't take an expert to get the P-38 to perform well but familiarity by a very skilled pilot or instruction was required for it to perform at its best.

It could also be a case of disinformation that never was corrected because the P-38 was sidelined after the war.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 25, 2006)

book1182 said:


> No doubt about it the P-38 had speed but could it really stand a chance against the more agile single engine airplanes? I would think the Me-109 would be able to out roll to it's advantage.



The P-38 had a very tight turning circle, good roll, one of the best climb/dive speeds, amoung the best accelerations. By utilizing its strengths could and did fight effectively 1:1 with its adversaries.

Here is a British test and evaluation against two Spitfire IXs and a Fw-190A note the .42 reduction was the normal set-up for the Spitfire IX:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Feb 26, 2006)

Mr. Wmaxt:

The problem with the WEP figure for the P-38 L is that I have never found any source, you name it, book, magazine, website, where safe WEP time is mentioned.

It is either they say nothing about WEP duration or resort to say vague things like "over 10 minutes".

From the handbuch of German fighters it is easy to know what was the exact time recomended to pilots to apply WEP. I do not think the P-38 L is going to surpass, say, the Bf 109 K-4 in this department.

Finally, the link you gently provided has a myth as headline. The Germans never ever called the P-38 a fork tailed devil.

Cheers!


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2006)

With equally skilled pilots the P-38 was no match for a Bf-109 or Fw-190.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2006)

Soren said:


> With equally skilled pilots the P-38 was no match for a Bf-109 or Fw-190.



Depends on what model, and what altitude, an L model P-38 will give any axis fighter a run for their money and its been clearly shown....


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends on what model, and what altitude, an L model P-38 will give any axis fighter a run for their money and its been clearly shown....



With equally skilled pilots, no. And otherwise has definitely not been clearly shown. 

It would take a very skilled pilot to be effective against fighters in the P-38, and if you met someone equally skilled but flying a more maneuverable plane, well then there's no contest.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2006)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on what model, and what altitude, an L model P-38 will give any axis fighter a run for their money and its been clearly shown....
> ...


While I agree I believe that the P-38 wasn't flown to its fullest potential in the ETO. It wasn't liked by the AAF brass and the majority of pilots flying it (I believe) weren't trained as well as their PTO counterparts.

I've mentioned my old neighbor Mike Alba who mentioned this to me during one of our conversations. He felt comfortable in the P-38 because he had almost 200 hours of B-25 times before he flew one. He told me many of his squadron mates did not enjoy that luxury. When his squadron went to the P-51 many (included him) wanted the P-38 back!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends on what model, and what altitude, an L model P-38 will give any axis fighter a run for their money and its been clearly shown....





FLYBOYJ said:


> While I agree I believe that the P-38 wasn't flown to its fullest potential in the ETO. It wasn't liked by the AAF brass and the majority of pilots flying it (I believe) weren't trained as well as their PTO counterparts.
> 
> I've mentioned my old neighbor Mike Alba who mentioned this to me during one of our conversations. He felt comfortable in the P-38 because he had almost 200 hours of B-25 times before he flew one. He told me many of his squadron mates did not enjoy that luxury. When his squadron went to the P-51 many (included him) wanted the P-38 back!!!



This is repeated over and over by pilots that flew the P-38 and other fighters. The 474th FG 9th AF lobbied hard enough to retain their P-38s. If you read many of the Pilots accounts you will also find that in a lot of cases just knowing the P-38 was very maneuverable allowed pilots the confidence to experiment and learn its best features. Jeff Ethel was using differential throttle for turns (like his dad did in combat) after only 1 1/2 hours flight time - the trick was knowing it could be done.

Some interesting information on drag, airframe efficency and flat plate area. From NASA:

Plane - FP Area - L/D ratio 

P-51 - 3.80sq/ft - 14.6
P-38 - 8.78sq/ft - 13.5
F6F-3 - 7.05sq/ft - 12.2
B-24J - 42.54sq/ft - 12.9
B-29 - 41.6sqft - 16.8

I deleted the estimated "Flat Plate areas" I had posted here because upon review I had misunderstood the method of deriving FP data. Sorry for any missunderstandings.  

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2006)

I know Jeff Ethel wrote about flying the P-38, I could not find anything about him using differential throttles (I'm sure its out there). I only find stuff about his accident....


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I know Jeff Ethel wrote about flying the P-38, I could not find anything about him using differential throttles (I'm sure its out there). I only find stuff about his accident....



This is the Flight Journal Magazine site go to - famous planes - then P-38 and you will fing Jeffs article. I dbl checked and the article is still there. The last paragraph says it all, BTW I belive Jeff flew all the US WWII fighters and many of the bombers. Its sad but he fell to a common P-38 issue he left the aircraft on the reserve tanks through his flight and ran them dry. He didn't have time to switch tanks and restart the engines.

That Link http://www.flightjournal.com

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2006)

FOUND IT - THANKS!!

"Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. *I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it.*"


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 26, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Wmaxt:
> 
> The problem with the WEP figure for the P-38 L is that I have never found any source, you name it, book, magazine, website, where safe WEP time is mentioned.
> 
> ...



Thats why I provided the chart as well as the explanation on the 1,600hp/1,725hp. This data was internal to Lockheed and not used as a sales tool or published until Warren Bodie a very respected avaition author found it in the Lockheed archives in the late '80s/early '90s. I don't have it but there is an AAF report that confirms all the charts presented in that site.

Safe WEP time is officialy 5 min, Pilots Operating Handbook. however to quote one P-38 pilot "when we were attacked we pushed the throttles up to over 60" and it stayed there until it was over, sometimes 20min or more".

The 109K-4 with C3 fuel might have beaten those numbers but how many were there? and how many of those had the fuel? and lastly when did they show up? The Ls capable of these numbers were available in the field in mid '44 on available fuel of course that was effectively only the 474th FG about 175planes in Europe after November '44.

I've heard that name was a myth, it may be - can you prove it? Supposedly, it came from the Africa/Sardinia/Italian theater where Stienhoff complained to Galland that the P-38s had a "Clear superority in speed and maneuverability" over his aircraft. In that context it is not unreasonable. I am trying to identify its source to find the truth though after all these years I don't have much hope.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2006)

There was only 4 Gruppen authorized to used 1.98ata > I. / JG 27, III. / JG 27, III. / JG 53, IV. / JG 53 

These 4 gruppen only had 142 a/c onhand with only 79 servicable on April 9 1945. It is not even certain that they were completely equiped with K-4s.

1.98ata boost was cleared in late Feb 1945.

Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109:
_"From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced."_

1.98ata could only be used with C3 *AND* MW50 > hp = 2000
C3 ONLY > 1850hp @ 1.80ata
B4 +MW50 > 1800hp


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 1, 2006)

wmaxt

I think Lunatic mentioned in another debate that most books written on US fighters give the max speed on military power, but not on war emergency power. One case was the P-51D, most sources say it reaches 437mph but in reality it's 448 mph.



> The P-38 had a very tight turning circle, good roll, one of the best climb/dive speeds, amoung the best accelerations. By utilizing its strengths could and did fight effectively 1:1 with its adversaries.



The tight turning cycle was not that important in the high speed clashes fought in the ETO. The Fw-190 could easily outroll the P-38 at high speeds, and IIRC the Bf-109 too. 

Regards.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 1, 2006)

I really doubt that, because it has been said from all of my aviation books that the Bf109 gave up maneuvering for raw speed from the late E/F models and onward. Yes, they were nimble machines, but a P38 would still gun em down.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2006)

> I think Lunatic mentioned in another debate that most books written on US fighters give the max speed on military power, but not on war emergency power. One case was the P-51D, most sources say it reaches 437mph but in reality it's 448 mph.



Thats as fast as a Spitfire Mk.XIV flying at full boost (2050 HP), and that aint gonna happen. A P-51B might be able to keep up, but not the heavier "D" model.



> The tight turning cycle was not that important in the high speed clashes fought in the ETO. The Fw-190 could easily outroll the P-38 at high speeds, and IIRC the Bf-109 too.



Well since the 109 has a wing CL-max of 2.05 when the slats are deployed, it will also easily out-turn the P-38 even at slow speeds.


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 2, 2006)

> Thats as fast as a Spitfire Mk.XIV flying at full boost (2050 HP), and that aint gonna happen. A P-51B might be able to keep up, but not the heavier "D" model.



Yes, but you are forgetting the "Meredith effect", which supplied quite a bit of power... I think that at 275mph IAS this extra power was 300HP.

Regards.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 2, 2006)

alejandro_ said:


> wmaxt
> 
> I think Lunatic mentioned in another debate that most books written on US fighters give the max speed on military power, but not on war emergency power. One case was the P-51D, most sources say it reaches 437mph but in reality it's 448 mph.
> 
> ...



Jabber showed us a test by the AAF that gives a P-51D a top speed of 445mph and I showed a Lockheed chart of a P-38l at 442-444mph. The point is that there very close. Speed differences of less than ~20mph are pretty meaningless anyway, its not enough to get you out of P-38 gun range soon enough (non converging guns). Less than a 20mph advantage is not enough to catch up in a stern chase of more than a ~mile either.

The 1100hp curve on that chart in actuality, I belive, is for Military power climb because it matches the POH 1425hp(54"), 17400lbs climb chart very closely. Second, the P-51D climb curve for comparison is in military power, and is actuly better than the Military power climb as provided in the P-51D POH. 

I stand by my statement - it not only happened, it wasn't unusual esp the later J/Ls. Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge. Even with the edge if you take ALL P-38 losses including Training accidents, collisions, bombing and ground attack missions (accounting for ~3/4 of the P-38 losses), the P-38 had a better than 1:1 loss average in Europe. It also had ~5:1 (608 Axis:113 P-38s) average in the MTO.

The Roll rate of the P-38J-25/Ls exceeded the Fw-190s from 350mph on up, These P-38s had hydralic boost the Fw-190 didn't, check the graph I posted earlier. It must also be noted that combat speeds were in the 275 to 375 region in most maneuvering engagments and always after the first turns were completed. One P-38 pilot made this coment about a Fw-190s roll rate "If I have him in my sites and he rolls, thats OK because my roll is close enough to keep him in sight and the more he roll the more energy he bleeds off - the quicker I drill him".

wmaxt


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 3, 2006)

wmaxt



> The Roll rate of the P-38J-25/Ls exceeded the Fw-190s from 350mph on up, These P-38s had hydralic boost the Fw-190 didn't, check the graph I posted earlier.



The Fw-190A4 shown in the graph is a damaged model captured by the US. The Fw-190 was one of the best aircraft when it came to rolling. The Royal airforce stated that at high speeds the rolling rate was slow because of heavy aileron forces.



> Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge.



Well, in the mediterranean it was a very effective fighter but in northern europe it's perforamance suffered quite a bit. I already mentioned the problems in another post.

Regards.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 4, 2006)

alejandro_ said:


> wmaxt
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said the peak roll rate of the Fw-190 was anything but the best, I'll also agree that the Fw-190s best roll rate is in the most frequently used speeds in maneuvering combat. My point was and is that from the top portion of that range the Fw-190s roll rate had deterioriated to the average roll rate of WWII fighters and esp the P-38s with boosted ailerons. The damage to that Fw-190A (the best rolling model) did not affect the ailerons or thier function.



alejandro_ said:


> > Remember the vast majority of P-38 clashes were from October '43 to June '44 when the Germans had both the numerical superority and the experiance edge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The actual performance of the P-38 in combat in the ETO was just as effective, the 8th AF only lost 451 P-38s to ALL causes. The common issues except for lack of heat, inexperianced pilots and ground crew were more due to operating procedures than anything else. Doolittle confirms this point himself. I recomend this site for a good picture of the P-38 in the ETO, check it out even/esp if you know all the standard stuff thats been laid on the P-38 I think you'll find some interesting stuff:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html
Ale, there is another reason I belive this way, In the Aleuitions the same models of the aircraft were used for long range missions at altitudes of 15,000ft to 25,000ft with slightly different operating technics. The P-38s were praised for their reliability and capability and the temp were -40deg _On The Ground_ and got colder as they went up! Somebodies telling fibs in the ETO!

wmaxt


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 13, 2006)

> The damage to that Fw-190A (the best rolling model) did not affect the ailerons or thier function.



Are you sure? I thought the Fw-190A5 captured had problems in the engine and the ailerons were not correctly set.

Regards.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2006)

alejandro is infact correct, the Fw-190A-5/U4 tested by the US can in no way be seen as representative for a properly functioning Fw-190A, not by a long shot ! 

The A-5U4 tested by the US had severe engine problems as it was running on Allied fuel which it wasn't built or calibrated to use, and its ailerons were badly out of adjustment exhibiting aileron flutter and reversal leading to premature stalling in turns.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 13, 2009)

Both of the fighters are almost exactly tied.

Both the 38L and the K4 are fast as hell (the 38L had a top speed over 440mph to the k4s 448mph), neither one can outclimb the other or out gun them. Still the 38L was more maneuverable since it competed maneuverability with the P-51 and P-47 which were both more maneuverable than the k4. But the K4 had the advantage in acceleration and rate of roll, especially at high speeds.

If I had to choose a fighter for its versatility (and range) the 38L; but if I had to choose a fighter for its sheer power the k4.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 13, 2009)

i've some troble with your consideration on manuevrability, idk for 38L but generally 38 it's best turning of 51 47, for rolling if i remember right the 38 is badest of 4751. 109 is best turning of 51 47 but also rolling bad (ever if my memory not fault) so i think there isn't a clear advantage in manuevrability.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2009)

The P-38 was without a chance in a turn fight and climb against the Bf109K-4, the K-4 is simply a lot better in both aspects of flight, and it was faster as-well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2009)

Another topic that pits 2 planes separated by a almost a year between they were operational 

And almost 4 years old thread


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 13, 2009)

1, IFF didn't help fighter pilots in air combat. It only returned a 'friendly' signal to ground radar stations, but fighter pilots in the air could not receive it, unless they informed via radio that unknown 'boogeys' may be near their position. But given the limited range of radar sets, in practice it gave the defender an advantage (whose fighters were in range of their own radar). 

2, The Germans had their own IFF system (the type FuG 25 Erstling) on their fighters for precisly the same reason.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2009)

wmaxt said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Curious - what is your source for 451 P-38 losses in ETO?

My count for the 8th AF is 296 lost Operationally including combat and non combat losses. I have not yet been able to find a reliable source for all 9th AF and Recce losses.

I also have 613 P-47s and 1383 P-51s and 21 Spifires all in/all causes for 8th AF


----------

