Best Fighter

[wmaxt]

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??

In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.

1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic

The P-51D was rated at 437 at optimum altitude, the P-38L could do 443 at it optimum altitude a small difference and not decisive in any case but it was there. I hate to admit it but a 5 mph speed difference could be due to waxing, poor maintenance or in the case of the Merlin worn cams of malfunctioning turbos.

As for seeing the enemy first I have to grant you there is more plane to look around on the P-38.

Well, this is a problem that commonly occures when you mix sources. You're using the Lockheed "best performance" figure for the P-38L against the USAAF's published top speed figure for the P-51D. To be fair you have to compare same against same. The USAAF top speed figure for the P-38L is 414 mph @ ~25,000 feet, where the P-51's top speed figure is 437 mph @ ~25,000 feet.

The P-51D was about 3 mph slower than the P-51B, which has a USAAF published top speed of 440 mph. However, using the North American top speed figure changes the picture dramatically:

Report: NA-5798
Title: "Flight Test Performance for the P-51B-1
Date: January, 1944
Test Weight: 8,460 lbs
High Speed: 453 mph true airspeed at 28,800 feet at 67" HG and 1298 HP,
war emergency power, high blower, critical altitude.

So the P-51D should be about 450 mph, maybe a mph or two less because of the change in critical altitude from 28,800 to 25,600 feet.

This demonstrates the serious problem with comparing figures from different sources.

But again, the real issue is cruise speed. The P-51 could cruise in full auto-lean at speeds up to 395 mph (363 mph was a common fast cruise setting), which is more than 100 mph faster than the P-38 cruise.

=S=

Lunatic

What load and trim was the test? Were there any modifications? This aircraft was also almost 3,000lbs less than normal max at 11,200lbs so this plane had min load that can add 10-12mph all by itself.

Mixed sources may be a problem however the Lockheed source also compares it with a P-51D which shows the normaly published speed of 437 for the P-51D as well as the 443 of the P-38L on identicaly set up aircraft with simulated amo load and half fuel.

The 414 of the AAF posted number is METO not a fair comparison. The P-38L in equal trim is if not faster as shown still right there (indavidual planes could vary as much as 10mph).

Should be isn't data. But the premis is logical.

As to cruise at higher speeds there is no reason to expect a signifigant difference in the two, since the P-38 is actualy more efficent at optimum cruise and other performance figures being as close as they are. Not having commonly published numbers does not mean not done or not possible. More data is needed here.

 

[wmaxt]

Great Points LG.....

There seems to be alot of direspect goin on here for the P-51D... Not a good thing.....

There was a reason why there were so many P-38's in the PTO..... Because they sucked in Europe..... Thats why they werent the dominant fighter...... Conditions and tactics did not favor the P-38's.....

I would rather be in a dogfight with a Bf-109G in a P-51D than a P-38L..... If it was combat with a Ki-84, Id pick the P-38L.....

There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s. The German planes used the split s on early model P-38s with inexperianced pilots with great effect (early P-38 pilots were afraid of compressibility and the orders were close escort in any case) at lower levels the German 109/190 needed a bounce or a lot less experianced or fuel limitated P-38 to have an even chance.

 

[lesofprimus]

There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.

I suppose u think i havent actually read any of these accounts?????

There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.

BTW, There are many accounts of Fw-190's and Bf-109's out maneouvering P-38's and P-51's.......

at lower levels the German 109/190 needed a bounce or a lot less experianced or fuel limitated P-38 to have an even chance.

Dude, give me a break.... I guess all those 100 Kill Aces were crappin in their pants when combat went below 5,000 feet huh???

If #'s tell a tale, there were alot more P-38's falling down in flames from the cannon of Fw-190's than vice versa..... I dont seem to recall many aces in Europe flying the P-38.....

 

[wmaxt]

There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.

I suppose u think i havent actually read any of these accounts?????

There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.

BTW, There are many accounts of Fw-190's and Bf-109's out maneouvering P-38's and P-51's.......

at lower levels the German 109/190 needed a bounce or a lot less experianced or fuel limitated P-38 to have an even chance.

Dude, give me a break.... I guess all those 100 Kill Aces were crappin in their pants when combat went below 5,000 feet huh???

If #'s tell a tale, there were alot more P-38's falling down in flames from the cannon of Fw-190's than vice versa..... I dont seem to recall many aces in Europe flying the P-38.....

I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive.

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way, but the P-38 was not a magnitude better.

Some of the best accounts I've read are in this forum in the archives. One in particular was by the comander of the fighters on Sicily or Sardinia.

I strongly belive that an experianced pilot in any top fifhter in WWII against an equal pilot could win any fight Including the bf-109, fw-190 ta-152, P-51, P-38, Spitfire, Tiffy and others.

Thanks for calling me on it, I do get wound up once in a while,

 

[lesofprimus]

Hehe.... Dont we all...

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way

Are u telling me that the Lightning shot down 4 German planes to each -38 lost???

4:1?????

Are u sure thats not in the whole war???

 

[redcoat]

I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive.

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way, but the P-38 was not a magnitude better.

The official USAAF figures for the loss/kill rate of the P-38 in Europe is in fact 1.1:1
Shooting down 1,771 enemy aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

By late 44 all the P-38's in Fighters Groups in the 8th Air-force USAAF in NW Europe had been replaced by P-51's

In Europe the P-38 had major problems with its high altitude performance, and in Europe most of the air to air combat took place at high altitude


However if you look at the air-war in the East ( where most of the fighting took place at a lower altitude and against lower performance aircraft) the P-38 does have a very high kill to loss ratio.
In fact it was the highest scoring USAAF aircraft in this theater

 

[lesofprimus]

Thank You for confirming that redcoat.....

 

[plan_D]

Randomly throwing the Spitfire in here, which got 8:1 kill ratio over the skies of Burma. That's right Maestro, the Mk. VIII!

 

[cheddar cheese]

Lets also randomly throw in the Brewster B-239 used by the Finns, which had a kill ration of 26:1, the highest of the war 8)

 

[wmaxt]

Hehe.... Dont we all...

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way

Are u telling me that the Lightning shot down 4 German planes to each -38 lost???

4:1?????

Are u sure thats not in the whole war???

Just to losses against German aircraft.

Just the ETO and the the majority of the P-38s sorties were close escort, against expert German pilots at 10-50/1 odds, while developing tactics and as you pointed out developing a plane ment to be an interceptor. Marten Cadin reported over 20+ Germans/1 P-38 the last 2 months of escort but everything was reversed by then and were talking 2 FGs?

It's been estimated that at least as many planes went down from bad fuel, thick oil from improper use of cowl flaps, the inovative wing intercoolers that sometimes separated the lead from the gas, and even frostbite as were lost to enemy fighters. The L models and to a lessor extent the late J models cured ALL that.

The kill numbers used by historians are 2,500+ in the ETO AND 5,730+ = 8,200+ FOR 10,000+/- p-38s built. And remember as many as 1/3 of it's sorties it was a bomber/attacker, when escorting was allways close escort with orders NOT to chase enemy aircraft and at least 1,400 were unarmed PR aircraft. It also set the 4/5% bomber loss rate with 5 F/G that the thousands of P-51s never improved on.

That's why I think it was the best fighter in WWII - it could do the little things and the big thins against the odds and still get the job assigned done.

 

[wmaxt]

I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive.

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way, but the P-38 was not a magnitude better.

The official USAAF figures for the loss/kill rate of the P-38 in Europe is in fact 1.1:1
Shooting down 1,771 enemy aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

By late 44 all the P-38's in Fighters Groups in the 8th Air-force USAAF in NW Europe had been replaced by P-51's

In Europe the P-38 had major problems with its high altitude performance, and in Europe most of the air to air combat took place at high altitude


However if you look at the air-war in the East ( where most of the fighting took place at a lower altitude and against lower performance aircraft) the P-38 does have a very high kill to loss ratio.
In fact it was the highest scoring USAAF aircraft in this theater

The official AAF records have been modified for political reasons droping 5,000 P-38 scores and 3,500 P-47 scores while ADDING some scores to the P-51 making the P-51 the best. Historians normaly give the P-38 2,500+in the ETO and 5,730+ in the PTO. The P-47 is normaly given 7,000+ for the war. The historicaly accepted numbers for the P-51 are 4,937 in the ETO, total for the was 5,932.

4/1 still stands plane to plane in the ETO. As noted above it was better everywhere else.

The 1,758 is aircraft lost to ALL causes! more than half of those were lost to training and development causes not combat. Not a good feeling for a pilot!

In 43 after the first round of disasterous bombing raids into Germany the questions arose in congress why were the bombers were not escorted. To Avoid a congressional investigation it was reported that NO fighter could do the job even though the P-38 was flying long range escort over to Italy from Africa. They also did the job in the ETO setting a 4/5% loss ratio the P-51s in their thousands never bettered! That's also why the "Official" posted top speed of the P-38L is 414mph they used METO not the 443 you get with WEP power settings.

Following sources will help dispel many of the myths and show the truths (good and bad) about the P-38.
The web site "P38(C.C.Jordon)" explains the numbers.
Marten Caiden in The Forke Tailed Devil: The P-38
Warren Bodie in his book on the P-38
Web page "p-38online"

Taking numbers out of contex is a bottomless trap.

 

[Lightning Guy]

It should also be noted that the P-38s in the 12th and 15th AFs dominated the same 109 and 190 competition they were facing in the ETO.

As has been noted, even when factoring in the P-38s lost to all causes (which included a lot of mechanical failures and losses to ground fire) the P-38 still maintained a better than 1-1 kill ratio and that when the Luftwaffe was at top form. I've not heard the 4-1 ratio cited, but it would have been possible.

 

[plan_D]

I thought the Hellcat had the best ratio in the war...or some Pacific fighter.

 

[wmaxt]

I thought the Hellcat had the best ratio in the war...or some Pacific fighter.

The Hellcat had a great kill ratio, I think it was highest too, and a lot of aircraft had a better ratio than the P-38.

It should be taken into account that for much of the war the P-38 was on the short end when it came to numbers, experiance, tactics and support. Follow on aircraft benifitted greatly from the P-38s teething problems.

The 1:4 ratio can be found in the 'P-38(C.C.Jordon)' web page.

 

[wmaxt]

The P-38 is an interesting case, you never know when you pick up a reference wheather it will depict the plane as "Great" or "Mediocre"

Top speeds reported vary from 395 to 414 (a recent documentary cited 365) when it's 443, for the L model, with amo balast and half fuel @ WEP power. The aviation historians place its kills at 2,500+/5,730+ while the AAF uses 1,771/1,800 (picked up in this web page) a difference of almost 5,000 kills.

The best I can give is check it out and decide for yourself. The following sites/books have tried to present up to date truthful, data, both good and bad.

web pages
The P-38online
p-38(C.C.Jordon)
Planes and Pilots of WWII

Flight journel Magazine article by Jeff Ethel on the P-38

books
The Forked Taile Devil the P-38 by Martin Caiden
The P-38 by Warren Bodie

It was an amazing plane for it's time.

 

[Erich]

you silly guys...........catch me if you can !

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sure, anytime..............

 

[Erich]

no way and this flew operational during the war correct over the skies of Germany ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

does that post make any sence to anyone else??

 

[Nonskimmer]

He's asking if that thing actually flew operationally during the war.