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

[wuzak]

Combat ready for where exactly?

Everywhere.

Combat ready doesn't mean that it will be superior to the opposition, or even competitive, but that the aircraft has all necessay equipment, armament and armour required for combat operations.

I don't think I'd rate my chances of survival highly in a duel between a P-38F/G against a Bf 109F/G.

I'd rather a P-38F than a P-38D or P-38E.

I'd much prefer a Spitfire IX on the Channel Front.

Which goes against what IdahoRenegade is saying.

The Spitfire IX arrives in the ETO before a truly combat capable P-38 could is what I am saying.

 

[Kevin J]

Everywhere.

Combat ready doesn't mean that it will be superior to the opposition, or even competitive, but that the aircraft has all necessay equipment, armament and armour required for combat operations.




I'd rather a P-38F than a P-38D or P-38E.




Which goes against what IdahoRenegade is saying.

The Spitfire IX arrives in the ETO before a truly combat capable P-38 could is what I am saying.

I'd rather a P-38G than a P-38F. Against a Me110, no problem. Against Jap fighters, no problems. Against all but the latest 1943 edition Italian fighters, no problems. Against Luftwaffe single seat fighters, big problems. You can't outrun, outdive, out roll or outturn. Maybe the 1944 edition P-38J, definitely the P-38L for use on the Channel Front. I'd take the P-38H/J in Italy in 1943, just hope there wouldn't be too many Germans around. Against the Japs, I'd keep the Lightning till the end of the war.

 

[Kevin J]

I'd rather a P-38G than a P-38F. Against a Me110, no problem. Against Jap fighters, no problems. Against all but the latest 1943 edition Italian fighters, no problems. Against Luftwaffe single seat fighters, big problems. You can't outrun, outdive, out roll or outturn. Maybe the 1944 edition P-38J, definitely the P-38L for use on the Channel Front. I'd take the P-38H/J in Italy in 1943, just hope there wouldn't be too many Germans around. Against the Japs, I'd keep the Lightning till the end of the war.

Introducing the P-38H /J in the ETO in 1943 is an act of desperation.

 

[wuzak]

The Brits cancelled all orders for the -322 before the first ones were delivered. Needless to say-that put a major wrench in the gears of production emphasis. Sadly-Lockheed wasted engineering and production resources on this castrated aircraft-at a time when they COULD have been building combat capable, turbocharged ones. They wasted the engineering resources to make this "special" version-resources that might better have been spent sorting out the compressibility issues, or perhaps simplifying the cockpit. IIRC, only 3 -322s were ever delivered to the Brits-who didn't want them, and refused to quickly test or seriously consider them. Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.

The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.

Considering "the Brits" had ordered 667 P-38s (with the French) compared the USAAC's order at that time of 66 P-38s, it would seem to make logical sense for Lockheed to concentrate on the British/French specification of P-38.

 

[Kevin J]

Considering "the Brits" had ordered 667 P-38s (with the French) compared the USAAC's order at that time of 66 P-38s, it would seem to make logical sense for Lockheed to concentrate on the British/French specification of P-38.

Looks like us Brits saved the day as the Japs attacked the US and suddenly there's 667 extra usable fighters available. Same with Airacobra.

 

[Shortround6]

Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.

The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.

Several things going on here,
1, the French were in on the initial order. How much influence they had I don't know but it points to the timing. They were looking for the fastest possible delivery. A good airplane in 9 months to year, not the best airplane 2-3 years in the future. Nobody (except the US?) really knew how bad the turbos really were but they were still experimental.
Lockheed had just pulled off the near impossible and delivered Hudson's well ahead of schedule. However the crash of the XP-38 in Feb 1940 meant that little testing had been done and no YP-38s were flying when the French/British placed their initial orders. British hada rethink and the bulk of over 600 P-38s (after the first 143) would have turbos, this was before the first YP-38 flew.
2, XP-38

Used Allisons with the same reduction gear as the early P-40s, not the reduction of the later planes.

3, The Mustang used the Allison -39 engine like the P-40D/E and not the -33 engine like the early P-40s. The -39 doesn't become a production engine until midway through 1941. Not much difference in altitude performance but a bit lower than around 13,000ft. Later versions (after Dec? 1941) were much stronger engines and would tolerate over boosting better.

The British lack of interest in the P-38/P-322 might also be explained by their experience with the P-39 and early P-40s. Not exactly stellar.

None of the British aircraft were actually "canceled", the contracts were taken over by the US Army and the serial numbers of the british aircraft can be traced to the American aircraft.
From Joe Baugher's web site "Twenty-eight other British-ordered aircraft were completed as P-38F-13-LO for the USAAF, 121 as P-38F-15-LO, 174 as P-38G-13-LO, and 200 as P-38G-15-LO. " other sources may differ a bit or change the numbers to include some recon variants?

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Combat ready for where exactly? I don't think I'd rate my chances of survival highly in a duel between a P-38F/G against a Bf 109F/G. I'd much prefer a Spitfire IX on the Channel Front.

Only problem is, by the time the Spit IX was available, there was not that much combat on the "channel front"-especially for a day fighter. The Spit's severely lacking range meant it was barely able to make it past the channel and unable to take the fight to the Germans, really, much after the BOB. The Spit was an outstanding "point defense fighter" (intercepter), with great rate of climb, maneuverability, and respectable speed-probably the best fighter of the war in that role. But the lack of range meant it was incapable of a great many missions...much after the BOB. In N. Africa it was left to a relative handful of P-38s to intercept and disrupt the German supply lines (operating well behind the front lines)-because it was the only bird with the range to do so.

A lot is made (legitimately) of the time to sort out the issues of the '38 at high altitude, first encountered in ~October '43, and pretty well resolved with the J-25-LO in IIRC March-April '44. "Fixes" included the dual generators, better cockpit heat, better gun heating, the dive recovery flaps, boosted ailerons (granted the compressibility limitations were never truly resolved without a wing redesign). Just how long did it take to correct the deficiencies encountered in other aircraft? Take the Spit for example-just how long did it take to address the range limitations and make it into a suitable long-range escort fighter (a need identified in what, 1940?)? How long did it take just to develop a carb that would tolerate negative Gs? We had hundreds of '47s in England in late '42 and early '43-that lacked the range to do the job. It took what, 2 years, just to develop drop tank systems capable of getting it even as far as Berlin (mid-late '44 IIRC). And just when did the N model come out? Also, how long did it take to get the 4-blade paddle prop on them to give them acceptable ROC? Even the Mustang took time to develop, identify the limitations of the single-stage supercharged Allison and redesign and re-engine it and finally get it in service as a LR escort in December '43.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The Brits cancelled all orders for the -322 before the first ones were delivered. Needless to say-that put a major wrench in the gears of production emphasis. Sadly-Lockheed wasted engineering and production resources on this castrated aircraft-at a time when they COULD have been building combat capable, turbocharged ones. They wasted the engineering resources to make this "special" version-resources that might better have been spent sorting out the compressibility issues, or perhaps simplifying the cockpit. IIRC, only 3 -322s were ever delivered to the Brits-who didn't want them, and refused to quickly test or seriously consider them. Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.

The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.

Bright spot was the cash advance that came with the French/British order, a lifesaver for some of the smaller airplane manufacturers. Got them through the lean times before the money started flowing in '41-'42.

 

[P-39 Expert]

By the time the P-38J and P-47D became truly capable in mid '44 they were being moved from escort to ground attack. Great use of the turbocharger attacking trucks and trains at 5000'.

 

[Kevin J]

Only problem is, by the time the Spit IX was available, there was nearly no combat on the "channel front". The Spit's severely lacking range meant it was barely able to make it past the channel and unable to take the fight to the Germans, really, much after the BOB. The Spit was an outstanding "point defense fighter" (intercepter), with great rate of climb, maneuverability, and respectable speed-probably the best fighter of the war in that role. But the lack of range meant it was incapable of a great many missions...much after the BOB. In N. Africa it was left to a relative handful of P-38s to intercept and disrupt the German supply lines (operating well behind the front lines)-because it was the only bird with the range to do so.

A lot is made of the time to sort out the issues of the '38 at high altitude, first encountered in ~October '43, and pretty well resolved with the J-25-LO in IIRC March-April '44. "Fixes" included the dual generators, better cockpit heat, better gun heating, the dive recovery flaps, boosted ailerons (granted the compressibility limitations were never truly resolved without a wing redesign). Just how long did it take to correct the deficiencies encountered in other aircraft? Take the Spit for example-just how long did it take to address the range limitations and make it into a suitable long-range escort fighter (a need identified in what, 1940?)? We had hundreds of '47s in England in late '42 and early '43-that lacked the range to do the job. It took what, 2 years, just to develop drop tank systems capable of getting it even as far as Berlin (mid-late '44 IIRC). And just when did the N model come out? Also, how long did it take to get the 4-blade paddle prop on them to give them acceptable ROC? Even the Mustang took time to develop, identify the limitations of the single-stage supercharged Allison and redesign and re-engine it and finally get it in service as a LR escort in December '43.

Tell that to the 70 Beaufighter aces, the bombed civilians, the civilians in Dieppe, maybe even the RAF and the Luftwaffe.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Tell that to the 70 Beaufighter aces, the bombed civilians, the civilians in Dieppe, maybe even the RAF and the Luftwaffe.

The Mk IX wasn't introduced until June '42. You have a point-it did make it to the coast of France (Dieppe)-but not much beyond-and with a limited combat duration. Imagine what could have been done with an actual long-range fighter in their hands at that time.

 

[Kevin J]

The Mk IX wasn't introduced until June '42. You have a point-it did make it to the coast of France (Dieppe)-but not much beyond-and with a limited combat duration. Imagine what could have been done with an actual long-range fighter in their hands at that time.

You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.

 

[fubar57]

You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.

In another thread you say the 90 gallon tank is a problem, no maneuvers. Here you advocate it

 

[Kevin J]

In another thread you say the 90 gallon tank is a problem, no maneuvers. Here you advocate it

You obviously missed my witty phrase 'before you get bounced and shot down'.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.

Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.

ETA:

"You obviously missed my witty phrase 'before you get bounced and shot down'. "

We were typing at the same time-wondered if that was what you meant

 

[Kevin J]

Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.

You risked your life using those 90 gal tanks, better to use the 45 gal ones.

 

[Kevin J]

You risked your life using those 90 gal tanks, better to use the 45 gal ones.

Better still, 60 gal tanks meant for the P-40.

 

[fubar57]

Obviously

 

[Shortround6]

Better still, 60 gal tanks meant for the P-40.

Which were not self sealing, nor were any drop tanks used on US fighters.