cheddar cheese
Major General
I know but I like correcting people with my new found knowledge, which has come up from nowhere... 
Best possible fighter
- Thread starter the lancaster kicks ass
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
RG_Lunatic said:
Check the graphs attached to the articles in the web page "Planes and Pilots of WWII". The most widly published stats of the P-38L are in METO power in WEP the P-38L gets to 20,000 in 4.5 -4.7 min. There are also several accounts with pictures of P-38s coming home after collisions with other aircraft, being the toughest is in many ways subjective. Consider this, no F-4U (an excelent aircraft) ever got home after losing an engine.
An additional P-38 reference is Warren Bodies book on the P-38, Mr Bodie worked as an engineer at Lockheed and has previously unpublished data. There were many truly excelent aircraft in WWII on all sides but none had the range of features the P-38 had. By the way in ACM the P-38 could hold its own with any aircraft who got the bounce would likely determine the winner.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
RG_Lunatic said:
No, the comparison is the F-4U-4. Also according to Martin Caiden who was with the 5th air force in WWII P-38Ls on occasion hauled a 5,000+ pound payload in combat conditions. Abouve 300mph the P-38J-25 andL models rolled faster than any fighter in WWII. There are also many reports of pilots like Bong out turning the vaunted Zero.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Correction I read the graph wrong the P-38L climbed to 20K in 5min with WEP power settings - still compettitive.
A
Anonymous
Guest
cheddar cheese said:
I'm not sure it would have made much difference at all. The big advantage to the merlin was it's integrated supercharger stage. One of the two stages of supercharging is integrated into the engine design, and sits between/above the valve bay. The Allison engine required to external supercharger stages to achieve the same levels of performance.
On the P-38, the merlin would have saved some room, but there was ample room in the boom design for both the external supercharger stage and the turbo charger stage, on the P-51, there was not.
Also, another fact is that the USA had it's own higher performance engine in the works. The Continental HyperEngine was ready for production at the start of US involvement in WWII, and it featured even more power than the Merlin (by virtue of its Hemi-Head design). However, the Merlin was a well established design, and more importantly, the USA wanted to produce Merlins for British use, and there was insufficeint tooling available to produce both.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #66
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes bit it's range with that would have been absolutely dreadful..............
the Fw-190A rolled better than any othe fighter................
250kts plus anything could out turn the zero.....................
cheddar cheese
Major General
We're talking under that speed here...
The P-38 rolls damn fast, and with a lot more stability because it isnt rolling around one axis where all the weight is...
Yes the range would be dreadful, but with Jugs it'd still be able to manage a fair amount.
The P-38 rolls damn fast, and with a lot more stability because it isnt rolling around one axis where all the weight is...
Yes the range would be dreadful, but with Jugs it'd still be able to manage a fair amount.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Check the graphs in the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" at 275mph the 190 at over140deg/sec was the champ by 350mph the P-38L was 10deg faster and more than 30deg faster by the time 400mph came around. As for the Zero all fights were not above 250mph.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
It's also true that combat had 2 phases normaly, the bounce and the fight. The bounce is usualy above 300 and the fight below 300. It's also true that only very good to exceptional pilots could get the truly world class ACM out of the P-38.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
RG_Lunatic said:
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Concerning the P-38 and its 2 engine survivability, I have read many instances where the pilot was killed/beheaded/severed in half by the exploding engine and prop blades flying through the canopy as a result of combat damage....
Losing one engine on a P-38 does not guarantee a return flight home....
Losing one engine on a P-38 does not guarantee a return flight home....
A
Anonymous
Guest
Below is a chart of some WWII aircraft roll rates.
The FW190 roll rate is deceptive. Yes it is very fast, but it is also very dependant upon speed. As you can see, at 250 IAS it is managing about 185 deg/s RoR, but by 350 IAS it's down to about half that. The sharp drop off is a negative for the pilot. It means he has to be cognizant of his planes speed quite accurately to know how the plane is going to react to his stick movements. In the P-51, at 250 IAS or 350 IAS, rolling 90 degrees is 1 second of stick hard to the side. In the FW190, at 250 IAS rolling 90 degrees is 1/2 second of stick hard to the side, but at 350 IAS it takes a full second. This had to be difficult to deal with in the high-speed combat of 1944-45.
The P-51 data shown is for a P-51B-1-NA, which was one of the first units off the line for production testing. The "seal balanced" aileron was just added immeadiately prior to this model, which greatly reduces the stick forces needed to achive a given RoR, and increases the maxium RoR (but not that much because the limits are reached) at speeds above 300 IAS. The effectiveness of the seal-balance ailerons improved greatly between this test plane and those that went to Europe. Very Late model P-47D's also had this technology (refered to as "blunt aileron technology").
The P-38L (and some late model J's) had hydrolic assist ailerons, meaning that there was no 50 lbs stick force limit. At high speeds in other planes, the pilot simply cannot generate maximum roll rates because he is not strong enough to push the stick over to achieve maximum aileron deflection. This is why most roll rate figures use 50 lbs or 40 lbs of stick pressure as a limiting factor, but this limiting factor is meaningless on the P-38L, it never required 50 lbs of stick pressure. Above about 350-370 IAS, the P-38L rolled better than the FW190. But even at lower speeds, its effectiveness at rolling was much higher, as the pilot could roll easily with little physical effort.
The P-47 was one of the very few planes in WWII for which the RoR did not diminish severely when pulling G's. This allowed the P-47 pilot to do rolling scissors and barrel roll moves in one smooth motion where their opponents had to do them in a series of steps. In general, the comment by P-47 pilots when asked about the extremely fast roll of the FW is that they never had a problem rolling with the FW or any other plane. I think this is the reason why.
Finally, the cockpit design is important to how much stick force a pilot can reasonably generate. In a cramped 109 cockpit, it was not reasonable for a pilot to generate 50 lbs of sideways force on the stick, and it would have been very difficult to do so in a FW which also had a cramped cockpit. In the P-51, the pilot could lean into it much more and get more pressure on the stick. And the P-38 didn't even have a stick, it had a steering wheel. Zero pilots were known to modify the stick on their planes, extending it to get more leverage.
=S=
Lunatic
The FW190 roll rate is deceptive. Yes it is very fast, but it is also very dependant upon speed. As you can see, at 250 IAS it is managing about 185 deg/s RoR, but by 350 IAS it's down to about half that. The sharp drop off is a negative for the pilot. It means he has to be cognizant of his planes speed quite accurately to know how the plane is going to react to his stick movements. In the P-51, at 250 IAS or 350 IAS, rolling 90 degrees is 1 second of stick hard to the side. In the FW190, at 250 IAS rolling 90 degrees is 1/2 second of stick hard to the side, but at 350 IAS it takes a full second. This had to be difficult to deal with in the high-speed combat of 1944-45.
The P-51 data shown is for a P-51B-1-NA, which was one of the first units off the line for production testing. The "seal balanced" aileron was just added immeadiately prior to this model, which greatly reduces the stick forces needed to achive a given RoR, and increases the maxium RoR (but not that much because the limits are reached) at speeds above 300 IAS. The effectiveness of the seal-balance ailerons improved greatly between this test plane and those that went to Europe. Very Late model P-47D's also had this technology (refered to as "blunt aileron technology").
The P-38L (and some late model J's) had hydrolic assist ailerons, meaning that there was no 50 lbs stick force limit. At high speeds in other planes, the pilot simply cannot generate maximum roll rates because he is not strong enough to push the stick over to achieve maximum aileron deflection. This is why most roll rate figures use 50 lbs or 40 lbs of stick pressure as a limiting factor, but this limiting factor is meaningless on the P-38L, it never required 50 lbs of stick pressure. Above about 350-370 IAS, the P-38L rolled better than the FW190. But even at lower speeds, its effectiveness at rolling was much higher, as the pilot could roll easily with little physical effort.
The P-47 was one of the very few planes in WWII for which the RoR did not diminish severely when pulling G's. This allowed the P-47 pilot to do rolling scissors and barrel roll moves in one smooth motion where their opponents had to do them in a series of steps. In general, the comment by P-47 pilots when asked about the extremely fast roll of the FW is that they never had a problem rolling with the FW or any other plane. I think this is the reason why.
Finally, the cockpit design is important to how much stick force a pilot can reasonably generate. In a cramped 109 cockpit, it was not reasonable for a pilot to generate 50 lbs of sideways force on the stick, and it would have been very difficult to do so in a FW which also had a cramped cockpit. In the P-51, the pilot could lean into it much more and get more pressure on the stick. And the P-38 didn't even have a stick, it had a steering wheel. Zero pilots were known to modify the stick on their planes, extending it to get more leverage.
=S=
Lunatic
Attachments
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Your points are well taken one thing I've read time and again is that the P-38 also had the ability to magnify the rool by differential throttle to add tourque effect in the desired direction, something only conter rotating props can add. That's not shown in the graphs and I don't know how to quantify it because not all pilots were good enough to use it. The P-38 also had a wheel to maximize the pilots ability to control the aircraft. Twin engine training was for crap and often pilots with as little as 20 hours in high performance fighters and no time in twins were put in P-38s. This was particurlary bad in the ETO.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
True but losing an engine in a single engined aircraft guranted an immediate landing regardless of where you were.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
This is true.....
A
Anonymous
Guest
wmaxt said:
The "Lockheed Stomp" is generally considered to be a myth. It was tried some by test pilots, but I've never seen an account of a pilot actually utilizing this in combat. And all such techniques are only useful in low speed combat. Any 1944 pilot who was enaging in low speed combat was a fool.
Yes, training in the P-38 was minimal in Europe. As I've previously posted, the control layout was also poor, requiring about 8 steps to go from cruise condition with drop tanks to combat condition (this was finally largely solved by the L model).
The F4U was a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The P-38 was quite susceptable to ground fire, the F4U was quite resistant.
=S=
Lunatic
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
RG_Lunatic said:
You should check out the web page "P-38(C.C.Jorden...)" He has extensivly reaserched these issues And interviewed various WWII p-lots like Ilfrey, Heiden and others. Your also right about early P-38s having issues with complicated cocpit. The P-38 has a very good record of ground attack and coming home with battle damage including mid air collisions. The airplane most suscetable to groung fire was the P-51.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oh I've thoroughly read Jordan's pages. Still, I don't believe the lockheed stomp was used in combat, if it was, only by a handful of pilots. It was known that doing this in testing bent the frame.
Where the P-38 stood out in low speed combat was in its extrodinary low end accelaration. You can watch the film at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html and they have a scene where the P-38 (D I believe) is next to a chase plane doing 95 knots, and then it pours on the gas and pulls away like a dragster - and the pilot does not nose down, it climbs pretty much too.
A good pilot could stay on the six of a better turning plane by lifting the nose, tilting the plane just so, and then letting it stall onto the new track, and then using the acceleration to regain speed/energy. There is a famous instance of a P-38L mock dogfight with a Spit XIV where the P-38 got on the Spit's six and the Spit could not shake it.
Yes the P-38 was certainly better than the P-51 for ground attacks, espeically the P-51B which had no armor protecting the radiator. But it does not compare to the P-47 or the F4U for this role, since its liquid cooled engines make it highly vulnerable to ground fire. Any hit to the engine or the radiator or the pulumbing is a lost engine, even from rifel cailber rounds.
=S=
Lunatic
Where the P-38 stood out in low speed combat was in its extrodinary low end accelaration. You can watch the film at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html and they have a scene where the P-38 (D I believe) is next to a chase plane doing 95 knots, and then it pours on the gas and pulls away like a dragster - and the pilot does not nose down, it climbs pretty much too.
A good pilot could stay on the six of a better turning plane by lifting the nose, tilting the plane just so, and then letting it stall onto the new track, and then using the acceleration to regain speed/energy. There is a famous instance of a P-38L mock dogfight with a Spit XIV where the P-38 got on the Spit's six and the Spit could not shake it.
Yes the P-38 was certainly better than the P-51 for ground attacks, espeically the P-51B which had no armor protecting the radiator. But it does not compare to the P-47 or the F4U for this role, since its liquid cooled engines make it highly vulnerable to ground fire. Any hit to the engine or the radiator or the pulumbing is a lost engine, even from rifel cailber rounds.
=S=
Lunatic
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
The video is cool, thanks!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
