Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L

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."

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.

Click to expand...

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

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....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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.

Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L

Pacific Historian

Staff Sergeant

Attachments

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Airman 1st Class

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads