Effectiveness of the P-38

[SaparotRob]

The trouble with the P-38 is it was initially conceived as an interceptor, used as a long range fighter and then switched to the fighter bomber role in the ETO...
All its imperfections, coupled with the pilots inexperience notwithstanding, it could fly at heights inconceivable for the P-39 and P-40, farther than both and the P-47, at a time when the Merlin P-51 was yet to be.
By the Way, in the rough climates of PTO or Aleutians, it did not met the troubles it had in the ETO.
By the way, my father was almost strafed by a P-38 in 1944...

I like the post, just not your dad being targeted so I went with "informative".

 

[MIflyer]

Capt Eric Brown said he was not that impressed with the P-38 but pointed out that for the time where it got into service, 1942, it must have been very good.

The RAF pilot shooting down that C-54 loaded with the dive flap mod kits seemed to mark the beginning of the end of the P-38's use in the ETO. Other alternatives were available by then and the P-38's use never recovered from that. The need to do bomber escort at 20K ft plus in the ETO coupled with the inability to dive on enemy aircraft was a serious deficiency.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of the P-38s problems in the 20K ft area and escorting had some relatively simple fixes.
Aside from the compressibility problem most were 'own goals' by the Air Corp.
Lack of cockpit heat?
Should have shown up on somebodies desk in 1940-41 when the British couldn't operated early B-17s at altitude because the crews were freezing.
Lack of heat 2 (and getting home on one engine)?
Only using an generator on one engine saves money and weight.
But if the generator won't make enough electricity to do all the things you want (or if the engine with the generator fails) you are going to have problems. Should not have required months of combat experience to figure that out.
Incredibly bad training by the USAAC. The USAAC was teaching high revs and low boost cruise around 2 years after the British had given up on it. Maybe it helped mask the Generator problem?
Still is not going to turn a P-38 into a P-51.

 

[Frog]

Some of the P-38s problems in the 20K ft area and escorting had some relatively simple fixes.
Aside from the compressibility problem most were 'own goals' by the Air Corp.
Lack of cockpit heat?
Should have shown up on somebodies desk in 1940-41 when the British couldn't operated early B-17s at altitude because the crews were freezing.
Lack of heat 2 (and getting home on one engine)?
Only using an generator on one engine saves money and weight.
But if the generator won't make enough electricity to do all the things you want (or if the engine with the generator fails) you are going to have problems. Should not have required months of combat experience to figure that out.
Incredibly bad training by the USAAC. The USAAC was teaching high revs and low boost cruise around 2 years after the British had given up on it. Maybe it helped mask the Generator problem?
Still is not going to turn a P-38 into a P-51.

Bad training seem to have been more than troublesome in the ETO and North African (a theater where the P-38 groups were initiating from the ETO). The complexity of the flight operations did not help.
This was less apparent in the MTO and ETO, possibly because they fought at a lesser altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

Greg has given a short list.

a) Throttle back to avoid overboost.
b) Increase rpm.
c) Throttle up to combat power.
d) turn on the gunsight.

But it was even worse.
At high rpm and low boost the turbos were not spinning very fast.
You are not going to get good throttle response until the turbos spin up.
If they cruise the other way, the turbo waste gates are closed more, the turbos are doing more of the work, you get better economy and if bounced you need to advance the throttles and increase the prop governor. But with the turbo already supplying more air pressure to carb, throttle response is going to be faster. Still have to get the props to turn ( props are like 400lb flywheels) but you have more power from the engine. There is less back and forth. Open throttles, increase pitch/advance governor to max.
Oil cooler flaps were not automatic and a few other things needed attention. They kept simplifying things.

 

[PAT303]

Would it be churlish to point out that it has two engines? It therefore needs twice as many engines to make the same number of planes, you also need twice of a lot of other stuff like fuel, cooling systems gauges etc etc etc and the pilot needs more training to fly a twin in combat.

You also have twice as many of everything to be hit, in a contested airspace how handy would a second engine really be?, any opposing fighter seeing a P38 limping away from a fight with an engine knocked out would be onto it like a hawk,

 

[GregP]

The pilot was cutting the throttle of the inner engine to sharpen his turn, it almost went into a flat spin so the fight was called off.

Everything was against it so not a fair comparison.

Thanks for proving my point. Unfamiliar with it.

 

[GregP]

I think the P-38 checks a lot of boxes: Speed? Very good. Including at high altitude. Climb? Absolutely. At least when some fuel has burned off. Turn rate? Quite good, especially with the Fowler-flaps dropped to manoverability setting. Armament? While not that many on paper, they are concentrated in the nose so pretty much devastating. Range? Very good, especially compared to many single-engined fighters. Dive? Not so much: The Mach tuck problems were never really sorted out and the dive brake solution was more of a crutch if anything. So not a very good feature to have given the German's favourite tactic of the split-S followed by a dive.

But then comes the big Achilles heel: Two heavy engines out in the wings. In addition, main fuel tanks in the inner wings. Added to that fuel tanks far out in the outer wings. Sum all of that together and you have a horrendous moment of inertia to overcome when you want to roll it. Compare that to a typical German single with armament in the nose or even synchronized cannons close to the fuselage centerline. Fuel tank under, or L-shaped by the pilot in the centerline. All of which summed together means low moment of inertia and that changing direction by rolling in one direction and reversing into another is easy peasy in the typical German single.

Even Spitfire pilots complained about the Fw-190's rolling and that "turning does not win battles". Now imagine sitting in a P-38 trying to stay on the tail of a Bf-109 or Fw-190 rolling left and right in front of you? This is when that moment of inertia is going to come back and bite you, boosted ailerons or not.

Francis Dean's excellent book America's 100 thousand has a nice section about the P-38 under the chapter "Maneuvering" on page 160 with some pilot's quotes as well which says pretty much the same thing: The P-38's roll acceleration was abysmal.

So I'm certainly with you on the P-38 being a great interceptor, but on the question if it also was a great fighter able to dogfight a single I have to respectfully disagree.

Any P-38 could stay with or out-roll any Bf 109 at both medium and high speeds. Maybe not at 180 mph, but at most speeds 220 mph and above, yes. Once it got hydraulic ailerons, it had no more issue getting full deflection. If the P-38 got slow, he was in trouble. If he stayed fast, he really wasn't.

 

[GregP]

You also have twice as many of everything to be hit, in a contested airspace how handy would a second engine really be?, any opposing fighter seeing a P38 limping away from a fight with an engine knocked out would be onto it like a hawk,

Things didn't really work that way.

If someone was limping home, he was generally escorted. If they were already on the way home, then his escort was the entire group.

 

[Shortround6]

You also have twice as many of everything to be hit, in a contested airspace how handy would a second engine really be?, any opposing fighter seeing a P38 limping away from a fight with an engine knocked out would be onto it like a hawk,

At least one P-38 made it home on one engine over SE Asia flying 600 miles.
Japanese had a much lower density of fighters and AA than Europe did.

Things changed with time.
The P-38 was built to have twice the endurance of a single engine plane using the same engine carrying the same armament.
High speed takes a lot of fuel.
Change the aerodynamics
Change the engine
Change the fuel
Change the supercharger set up
Change more than one thing?

They built over 1600 P-38s in 1942, How many Merlin 61s did they build in 1942 to put in anything?
Yes the P-51 is a better fighting machine and much cheaper. But didn't exist in a useable form in 1942.

 

[GregP]

Capt Eric Brown said he was not that impressed with the P-38 but pointed out that for the time where it got into service, 1942, it must have been very good.

The RAF pilot shooting down that C-54 loaded with the dive flap mod kits seemed to mark the beginning of the end of the P-38's use in the ETO. Other alternatives were available by then and the P-38's use never recovered from that. The need to do bomber escort at 20K ft plus in the ETO coupled with the inability to dive on enemy aircraft was a serious deficiency.

They didn't have to "recover" from shooting down the transport. It was not good, but hardly the airplane's fault.

It won't do ANYTHING without a pilot.

 

[MarkS]

One thing about the P-38 is that it was recognizable at long distance due to its distinctive layout. And this was a war where fighter pilots' ability to distinguish friend from foe, at the limits of their vision, was important.
Built-in, can't be fixed.
But the Lightning was (obviously) an excellent fighter plane; its record proves that. And the USAAF found ways to use its superior characteristics, and fix its issues, so that it was effective. Remember that everyone was using what they had and modifying their aircraft, strategy, and tactics as the campaigns wore on… Kelly Johnson didn't know in 1939 what combat conditions would be, in different theaters, five years hence. He had an idea, it was a good one, and combat experience helped them improve it.
This hindsight stuff… in 1950 every Allied air commander, if asked, would have preferred to have had F-86 Sabres in 1943. But they fought and won with what they had. And certainly the P-38 did its job well.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

British production, 47 Merlin 60 in 1941, 28 Merlin 60, 673 Merlin 61, 95 Merlin 62, 40 Merlin 63, 3 Merlin 73, total 839 in 1942, 4,209 Merlin 61 to 73 in 1943.

P-38 1 XP-38A, 95 P-38E, 130 P-322, 527 P-38F, 509 P-38G, 3 P-38J, total 1,265, along with 98 F-4, 20 F-4A, 96 F-5A, in 1942.

 

[PAT303]

Things didn't really work that way.

If someone was limping home, he was generally escorted. If they were already on the way home, then his escort was the entire group.

Look at both of the famous P47's that were shot up, in both cases the Jug couldn't get away because the turbo ducting had been holed so no boost was getting to the engine and in both cases they were pounced on by enemy fighters because they were seen as easy kills, it was only the fact that both Luftwaffe aircraft had no cannon ammunition left that saved them, no escorts in sight.

 

[PAT303]

At least one P-38 made it home on one engine over SE Asia flying 600 miles.

Do you think a P38 limping back from Berlin would make it?, I wouldn't put money on it.

 

[PAT303]

They built over 1600 P-38s in 1942, How many Merlin 61s did they build in 1942 to put in anything?

How effective were the 1942 era P38's?, from what I have read not really, it wasn't until the second half of '43 that it got hydraulic controls and the J model two years later in 1944 that the definitive model was produced. I'm no expert on the P38 but a quick read up has all the models made before that in need of factory or field modifications as one problem after another was experienced.

 

[PAT303]

Thanks for proving my point. Unfamiliar with it.

It was flown by Col Lowell, he certainly was familiar with the P38.

 

[Frank Stewart]

In the interceptor role then maybe yes, but when someone says fighter, then that would imply tangling with single-engined fighters as well and there the P-38 would be completely out of its depth IMHO: Because even if the later models got boosted ailerons, what counts is not the top roll rate (which the boost certainly helped with) but how fast you can go to say 60 deg bank in one direction, and then rapidly roll over to reverse into a 60 deg turn in the other direction. And this goes for both offense and defense. But the moment of inertia two engines placed out on the wings gives you kills all that. Ergo the P-38 may have been a decent interceptor, but a fighter it is not.

Probably stepped on some P-38 toes right there but the fact still remains that later in WW2, much of the maneuverability research came to center on roll performance and there it was simply out of its depth.

Grabs hat, starts running!

Boosted Ailerons give the P-38 the highest Rate of Roll of All common combat aircraft of WW-II. In spite of the highest Polar Moment of Rotation! You are absolutely correct when you state 60 Degrees left to 60 Degree right is important, it is the single most important part of dog fighting! But Maximum Continuous Throttle speed is more important, and no other plane can match the P-38 at altitude! None! The P-51 is close at 25K' and the P-47 is close at 30-33K', but no other plane is close! Speed is life! (A Famous fighter pilot statement!)
Secondly, it was far and away the single best gun platform of all fighters in the war! (Caused by the complete absence of "P" effect caused by those counter rotating props and CL mounted guns with high RoF and MV/BC!) PBR =800 Yards and maximum effective Range 1,800 Meters!

 

[GregP]

Look at both of the famous P47's that were shot up, in both cases the Jug couldn't get away because the turbo ducting had been holed so no boost was getting to the engine and in both cases they were pounced on by enemy fighters because they were seen as easy kills, it was only the fact that both Luftwaffe aircraft had no cannon ammunition left that saved them, no escorts in sight.

I'm sure there is a point in there, but you can find examples of almost anything during the war.

 

[GregP]

It was flown by Col Lowell, he certainly was familiar with the P38.

Almost hitting the ground doesn't make it seem that way, now does it?

I've been a pilot since 1984 and, so far, I only hit the ground with my wheels when landing. That includes off-airport landings. Then again, I haven't put on a dogfight close to the ground for the benefit of spectators, either, so there's that.