1942 and on: RAF fields 'proper' P-38s - consequences?

[tomo pauk]

Weren't these issues being discovered and debugged in the Aleutians?

It was brought in this forum that Aleutian P-38s were flying at mid altitudes (typically under 15000 ft), so the cockpit heater was fine for them. Once the multi-hour operations started at 25-30000 ft, in ETO, during winter, the proverbial hit the fan.

 

[Shortround6]

The weather in the Aleutians is not as bad as many people think, they are warmed by the Japanese current, the Pacific version of the Gulf Stream. While not a tropical paradise it is not anywhere near as cold as Fairbanks, even Anchorage has better weather than Fairbanks.

Weather for the Island Dutch Harbor is on:

" The mean annual temperature for Unalaska is about 40.5 °F (4.7 °C), being about 31.5 °F (−0.3 °C) in January and about 52 °F (11.1 °C) in August. With about 225 rainy days a year, Unalaska is among the rainiest places in the United States."

A cold miserable place to be stationed or fight in but not the temperatures needed to discover the Problems of the P-38.

 

[eagledad]

Tomo,

In regards to cockpit heat on the P-38, the US recognized that it was a problem as least as early as March 1943. There were also reports about that problem coming from the PR squadrons (mainly the 13th) in England in May of 1943. I believe that many of the same problems that the 55th FG experienced with their P-38H's had already been discovered and reported by the PR squadrons at least 6 months before the P-38H's were committed to combat. Why the USAAF was so slow in fixing the problems is a mystery to me.

Eagledad

Sources ww2aircraftperformance, and "Eyes of the Eighth"

 

[wmaxt]

The WPB (War Production Board) permission was required for most modifications and all modifications that might affect production but this doesn't explain all of the delays in fixing some of the issues in the P-38 as far as I have been able to uncover.

1. The Dive Flaps were approved by Cpt.Kelsy in the April '43 time frame.
2. Another problem was the single generator that the P-38 needed because it had a substantially greater electrical requirements. Some pilots of the 20th FG say that single generators are to blame for the loss of more planes than the engine problems.
3. Cockpit heat

Until mid 1943 Ventura's were being built in the same factory as the P-38, also there were problems with the new 'Core" type intercoolers that required Lockheed to build the H model while getting these issues worked out. By December 43 they were building J and H models side by side. These production issues may have affected the decisions to implement the modifications noted above.

The second generator, dive flaps and hydraulic ailerons were introduced on the J-25 model. The J-25 also added a second heat source on the left engine, the first was on the right engine, to turbo exhaust pipe for added heat, the second generator allowed a heated flight suit to be used.

With the L model More powerful/strengthened engines, heavier bomb/drop tank pylons were strengthened to accommodate 2,000 bombs and mounts for the rocket tree were installed.

The P-38K with paddle props that would have added greatly to the P-38s performance ( how does sitting at a stop on the runway to 20,000ft in 5min flat grab you) because they would have stopped the production line for about two weeks and the P-38 was to important to allow any delay, by the WPB. Another modification was a unified throttle quadrant was also stopped by the WPB, I don't know what the reason was. The WPB was chaired by Dutch Kindleberger.

Bill

 

[Mad Dog]

I think the P-332s would have been a great home defense fighter and multi engine trainer for the RAF, nothing much more.

Not really. Without turbos it didn't have the altitude performance required for the Channel theatre. But, where it would have been invaluable, even in P-322-61-04 shape, was the Med. The P-322 Lightning I brought one great attribute lacking RAF fighters in the Med - range. The altitude issue also wasn't a problem as the most common opponents in the Med were the Fiat G.50 and the Machi C200, both of which had low ceilings. The P-322 would have outrun, out-gunned and out-ranged any Italian fighter, and given even the Bf109-E and F problems . Flying from Gibraltar and Egypt, P-322s would have allowed much better protection for convoys to Malta, being easily able to catch and dispatch any Axis bomber, and a good match for their ME110 escorts. And over the Desert they could have got in behind the enemy line and strafed their transport, forcing the Axis to divert fighters to the rear areas more. The P-322s would even have shared engine maintenance with the P-40s sent to the theatre.
If the RAF had followed the usual practice for American aircraft - banished them from the UK to the Med and Far East - then the DAF would have had a true long-range day-fighter in mid-1942. Use of Lightning Is might then have inspired the RAF to accept the Lightning II for the theatre, which were equivalent to P-38Fs, and then we have the RAF using a long-range, 400mph day-fighter, which can cover the whole of the Med from Allied-held territory, from late 1942 or early 1943. I would suggest that would have made a difference, especially in concert with USAAF P-38s and B-24s.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not really. Without turbos it didn't have the altitude performance required for the Channel theatre. But, where it would have been invaluable, even in P-322-61-04 shape, was the Med. The P-322 Lightning I brought one great attribute lacking RAF fighters in the Med - range. The altitude issue also wasn't a problem as the most common opponents in the Med were the Fiat G.50 and the Machi C200, both of which had low ceilings. The P-322 would have outrun, out-gunned and out-ranged any Italian fighter, and given even the Bf109-E and F problems . Flying from Gibraltar and Egypt, P-322s would have allowed much better protection for convoys to Malta, being easily able to catch and dispatch any Axis bomber, and a good match for their ME110 escorts. And over the Desert they could have got in behind the enemy line and strafed their transport, forcing the Axis to divert fighters to the rear areas more. The P-322s would even have shared engine maintenance with the P-40s sent to the theatre.
If the RAF had followed the usual practice for American aircraft - banished them from the UK to the Med and Far East - then the DAF would have had a true long-range day-fighter in mid-1942. Use of Lightning Is might then have inspired the RAF to accept the Lightning II for the theatre, which were equivalent to P-38Fs, and then we have the RAF using a long-range, 400mph day-fighter, which can cover the whole of the Med from Allied-held territory, from late 1942 or early 1943. I would suggest that would have made a difference, especially in concert with USAAF P-38s and B-24s.

A 7 year old post - made me forget about this one.

You made points but the fact was the RAF ordered these aircraft (despite the quantity), better to put them to use then let them sit. I'd rather be in a turbo-less lightning than in a Defiant or a Battle!

And you forgot the second point "trainer."

 

[pinsog]

Can anyone post a test or stats for a 322 Non turbo Lightning? I've never seen any numbers for one

 

[michael rauls]

I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.

 

[Mad Dog]

…..And you forgot the second point "trainer."

I remember reading somewhere that having both props spinning the same way gave the P-322 some undesirable handling issues. The majority of the P-322s that went to the USAAF were given unturbocharged but handed engines (V-1710-27 and -29), and were described as "sweet" and "docile", so I assume the problem was just the handing of the engines. That and the Air Ministry's completely hide-bound inability to accept such technological advances as twin-engine fighters with tricycle undercarriages. I'm not sure you'd want a twin-trainer with poor handling.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939 - 1945 by Tim Mason has the following about the Lightning:

"For good measure, the only example to reach A&AEE, AF106 had no armament and was restricted to 300mph. Trials were limited to a brief assessment from April 1942. Handling was pleasant, although the elevator was heavy, the stall at 78mph (flaps and u/carriage down) straightforward, and flying on one engine comfortable and without foot loads down to 115mph. The red and green colouring of the engine controls was praised as was the tricycle undercarriage. The trial was of academic interest as the RAF had rejected the Lightning on the basis of unacceptable high altitude/ high speed characteristics found by RAF test pilots in the USA."

No figures recorded in the book.

Eric Brown flew the F-5 PR variant in 1945, not having flown the earlier variants; he had this to say about it (Wings of the Weird and Wonderful Vol 2):

"Landing the lightning was like child's play whether on two engines or one, and the latter case was made easier by the powered ailerons. This short acquaintance with the Lightning left me with the feeling of having enjoyed it but wondering how the earlier models had been so successful in combat. Certainly the earlier shortcomings had been improved sufficiently to keep this likeable aeroplane in good enough shape to survive to 1945, so I suppose it must have been very good by 1942 standards when it first appeared on the battle scene."

 

[Glider]

I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.

The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference.
I also find it difficult to accept that heating was a major problem in actual combat as most aircraft of the time had poor or almost ineffective heating, why was the P38 so unique in it being such an issue?

 

[Shortround6]

Pilot wasn't sitting behind a 1/2 ton to one ton of hot metal

Not saying that Spitfire or P-47 cockpits were comfy but sitting in a 0 degree cockpit and minus 20 degree cockpit for several hours aren't quite the same thing.

 

[Greyman]

In combat, adrenaline tends to take care of the temperature issue, but sometimes pilots are so cold appendages refuse to function (see heated trigger-thumb gloves for Spitfire pilots).

It's the tedious hours in-between that trapped sitting in -20/-30 tends to have a larger effect.

The P-38 was unique in this issue because the temperature the pilots felt was noticeably lower than other aircraft. I'm not sure what is difficult to accept.

 

[michael rauls]

The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference.
I also find it difficult to accept that heating was a major problem in actual combat as most aircraft of the time had poor or almost ineffective heating, why was the P38 so unique in it being such an issue?

Depends on the individual German, the period of the war, and the theater what they thought of the p38. German pilots that encountered the pre J25/ L types being used for high altitude escort where they were not so well suited were not to impressed true but German pilots, at least some, and some pretty competent ones too like Franz Stigler, that encountered them under conditions more favorable to the Lightning in theaters where the fighting was done at low to medium altitude found them to be tough oposition.
Certainly if you take range out of the equation the Spitfire is alot better in the fighter role but that's the point, many times that range is critical and that is what most RAF types, as good as they were lacked.
It would have given the RAF the ability to project power in the form of a high performance fighter( at low to mid altitudes) at much longer ranges. That would seem to be if not a game changer than at least a huge posative adition to capabilities.
Sometimes it's better to have a fighter that's pretty good that can get there than one that's superlative that can't. Imho.

 

[pbehn]

Depends on the individual German, the period of the war, and the theater what they thought of the p38. German pilots that encountered the pre J25/ L types being used for high altitude escort where they were not so well suited were not to impressed true but German pilots, at least some, and some pretty competent ones too like Franz Stigler, that encountered them under conditions more favorable to the Lightning in theaters where the fighting was done at low to medium altitude found them to be tough oposition.
Certainly if you take range out of the equation the Spitfire is alot better in the fighter role but that's the point, many times that range is critical and that is what most RAF types, as good as they were lacked.
It would have given the RAF the ability to project power in the form of a high performance fighter( at low to mid altitudes) at much longer ranges. That would seem to be if not a game changer than at least a huge posative adition to capabilities.
Sometimes it's better to have a fighter that's pretty good that can get there than one that's superlative that can't. Imho.

Leigh Mallory's genius would have seen squadrons of pilots taken prisoner close to the Alps.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I remember reading somewhere that having both props spinning the same way gave the P-322 some undesirable handling issues. The majority of the P-322s that went to the USAAF were given unturbocharged but handed engines (V-1710-27 and -29), and were described as "sweet" and "docile", so I assume the problem was just the handing of the engines. That and the Air Ministry's completely hide-bound inability to accept such technological advances as twin-engine fighters with tricycle undercarriages. I'm not sure you'd want a twin-trainer with poor handling.

The only thing having the props turn in the same direction did was create a "critical engine" (This has been discussed in length through out this forum) and dozens of twins flown during that period were in the same boat, so I'd like to know if that statement about "undesirable handling issues" came from an actual pilot or the opinion of an author. Having an advanced twin with a critical engine is exactly what would you'd want. Taking this a step further, you would not be putting a green pilot in this aircraft, it would clearly be used for advanced training. The last point is in an advanced trainer, you don't want "sweet" and "docile," you want the student to work and be challenged enough so he could learn and develop proficiency without killing himself.

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference.

The early P-38s (F & G) get to England are declared operational at the end of Aug/beginning of Sept 1942 depending on group, first operations are flown in early Sept. In the first 320 sorties two Lightnings are lost due to non combat crashes, no claims of German aircraft? By the end of Oct most of the P-38s in England have been sent to North Africa and there are few, if any, P-38s left by the end of Nov. At least one B-17 escort mission was flown, perhaps more. But the target was in France, actual P-38 vs german fighter combat in the fall of 1942 in Europe was a very rare event. How the german pilots formed any valid conclusions of the P-38s abilities is a bit of an unknown.
The Germans did fight the P-38s in NA with operation Torch and then Tunisia and Sicily/Italian invasion. So it is there that any German impressions would have to come from.

P-38H-5s were arriving in England in Aug of 1943.

 

[michael rauls]

The early P-38s (F & G) get to England are declared operational at the end of Aug/beginning of Sept 1942 depending on group, first operations are flown in early Sept. In the first 320 sorties two Lightnings are lost due to non combat crashes, no claims of German aircraft? By the end of Oct most of the P-38s in England have been sent to North Africa and there are few, if any, P-38s left by the end of Nov. At least one B-17 escort mission was flown, perhaps more. But the target was in France, actual P-38 vs german fighter combat in the fall of 1942 in Europe was a very rare event. How the german pilots formed any valid conclusions of the P-38s abilities is a bit of an unknown.
The Germans did fight the P-38s in NA with operation Torch and then Tunisia and Sicily/Italian invasion. So it is there that any German impressions would have to come from.

P-38H-5s were arriving in England in Aug of 1943.

Yes, that's where the 3 German pilots whos quotes I read that gave the impression that they felt the p38 was a worthy adversary encountered them, in Na and the Med.
The J25s and Ls weren't in Western Europe in any significant numbers until mid 44 so encounters there would have been for the most part at least with the earlier types( sons dive flaps and engine troubles mostly worked out.)
Perhaps i was unclear in my post( always a posibiity)

 

[Shortround6]

The P-38 was not a common aircraft in most theaters until late 1943 and 1944. It was there but even in the Med it rarely or never exceeded 3 fighter groups in strength during that time. In Britain in Oct 1943 there were only 2 fighter groups equipped with P-38s compared to 7 fighter groups with P-47s. and the 2nd one didn't go operational until Nov?
Aside from photo recon no P-38s had been used for combat from England from Oct/Nov of 1942 until Oct of 1943. The H version shows up in England in aug and goes operational in Oct 1943. It is the H that suffers most of the problems over the winter of 1943/44. The Fs and Gs had all gone to NA the year before. The first J's left the production line in Sept of 1943 but due to a shortage of the new intercoolers both the H and early J were produced at the same time as supplies of components allowed.

 

[wuzak]

I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.

The bulk of the RAF order of P-38s was to be "proper" P-38s - with handed engines and turbos. But the order was cancelled in favour of production of P-38Fs for the USAAF after Pearl Harbor.