Effectiveness of the P-38 (7 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

<snip>

<snip>

Yet again, people using facts instead of agreeing with the fairy tale.
C'mon.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No. Yamamoto was shot down in April 1943. Lindbergh wasn't in SWPAC until the spring of 1944. Lindbergh had nothing to do with that mission.

Lindbergh's contribution to winning WWII has been blown out of proportion. As others have noted Vought sent him out to the Pacific in May 1944. In mid June he flew out to the 475th Fighter Group in Hollandia flying his first mission on June 27. On July 28 he flew his last mission and returned to Marine Corsairs. The claim that one month of flying with one fighter group in the middle of nowhere with a year remaining in the war somehow altered how the USAAF flew P-38s is a stretch. How was this vital information disseminated from New Guinea?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yet again, people using facts instead of agreeing with the fairy tale.
C'mon.

Those were snippets from my previous posts Anyone suffering from insomnia should read the entire posts they are quite lengthy

 

[Steamed_Banana]

By 1944 the war was well past the tipping point, both in the Pacific and in Europe

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lindbergh's contribution to winning WWII has been blown out of proportion. As others have noted Vought sent him out to the Pacific in May 1944. In mid June he flew out to the 475th Fighter Group in Hollandia flying his first mission on June 27. On July 28 he flew his last mission and returned to Marine Corsairs. The claim that one month of flying with one fighter group in the middle of nowhere with a year remaining in the war somehow altered how the USAAF flew P-38s is a stretch. How was this vital information disseminated from New Guinea?

I'm just particularly sick and tired of that particular myth.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I'm just particularly sick and tired of that particular myth.

And he made ace!

 

[GregP]

Watching Dan Whitney and Joe Yancey spar back and forth over the Allison at lunch and back at Joe's shop was an eye opener.

I can't replace the experience.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Well, the V-1710 tended to be rated as the superior engine vs the Merlin in the RAF-s tac recon Mustangs, and at low altitude said Mustangs were at least just as fast as the Merlin ones until 25lbs/80+in/Hg supercharger boost was used on the Merlin. Granted, those P-51s weren't being used at high alt and didn't use turbos along with the standard supercharger.

All engines and such do have things they can do better than another/their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-38Js didn't get the electric cockpit heaters (or effective ones?) until the P-38J-10s.
These got a generator on each engine and had enough generator capacity to run the new heater/s.
With one generator there wasn't enough electrical power.
P-38s were actually an engine critical aircraft. While the plane flew just fine on a single engine with little or no change in handling, the fact there was just one generator was problem. The Props were electric, some of the instruments were electric, radios used a lot of power. The battery was only good for a short period of time running everything if it was the engine with generator that failed/was damaged. Pilots were instructed to turn off the cockpit lighting unless really needed and/or only use it for short periods to check things. Radio was also turned off for long periods of time. Propeller was also put into manual mode or the pilot flew without changing rpm/throttle as much as possible to minimize pitch changes.

It took somebody like Lindbergh to break through the USAAF stupidity on how to the fly the P-38 (and maybe the P-47). Low RPM and high boost (high being 2-4lbs or 4-8 inches above 30in) had been known for several years by the RAF and others. Lockheed and Allison were sending out training bulletins describing how to do it. The USAAF didn't believe it and thought that high rpm and low boost gave better response (faster acceleration) when surprised/bounced. P-38s had a different response than "normal' fighters. In a normal fighter (non-turbo) you have to get the engine/propeller to speed up/gain rpm and a 400lb propeller makes a heck of a fly wheel. Problem with the P-38 (and P-47?) is that while cruising at high rpm the turbo is near idling and you won't get anywhere near max boost until the turbos speed up. Really, really bad turbo lag. If running at lower rpm and higher boost the turbos are spinning faster and the engine can make power when the throttles are opened. It is still going to take a while but the high rpm/low boost cruise did not speed up response and just burned more fuel and caused more wear on the engine. Who here cruised a 4 speed car in 3rd gear for better throttle response

 

[PAT303]

Lower the rev's and boost the boost, that will bring you home to roost

 

[Steamed_Banana]

That's what they should have done, got Dr Seuss involved to help convey the messages, instead of that old Nazi sympathiser Lindburgh. Maybe they could have gotten that sorted earlier.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I would also add though, that the Army not just blindly following Lockheed's advice isn't as crazy as it seems, as Lockheed was not acknowledging the compressibility and electrical and some of the fuel related or cooling related (?) turbo / engine problems that the Army pilots were reporting for a long time, and didn't seem to recognize the heater issue either.

There was a serious communication breakdown between the front lines and the arms contractor which was lasting far longer than it should have, kind of like with the Mark 13 and Mark 14 torpedoes.

 

[GregP]

The P-38Js didn't get the electric cockpit heaters (or effective ones?) until the P-38J-10s.
These got a generator on each engine and had enough generator capacity to run the new heater/s.
With one generator there wasn't enough electrical power.
P-38s were actually an engine critical aircraft. While the plane flew just fine on a single engine with little or no change in handling, the fact there was just one generator was problem. The Props were electric, some of the instruments were electric, radios used a lot of power. The battery was only good for a short period of time running everything if it was the engine with generator that failed/was damaged. Pilots were instructed to turn off the cockpit lighting unless really needed and/or only use it for short periods to check things. Radio was also turned off for long periods of time. Propeller was also put into manual mode or the pilot flew without changing rpm/throttle as much as possible to minimize pitch changes.

It took somebody like Lindbergh to break through the USAAF stupidity on how to the fly the P-38 (and maybe the P-47). Low RPM and high boost (high being 2-4lbs or 4-8 inches above 30in) had been known for several years by the RAF and others. Lockheed and Allison were sending out training bulletins describing how to do it. The USAAF didn't believe it and thought that high rpm and low boost gave better response (faster acceleration) when surprised/bounced. P-38s had a different response than "normal' fighters. In a normal fighter (non-turbo) you have to get the engine/propeller to speed up/gain rpm and a 400lb propeller makes a heck of a fly wheel. Problem with the P-38 (and P-47?) is that while cruising at high rpm the turbo is near idling and you won't get anywhere near max boost until the turbos speed up. Really, really bad turbo lag. If running at lower rpm and higher boost the turbos are spinning faster and the engine can make power when the throttles are opened. It is still going to take a while but the high rpm/low boost cruise did not speed up response and just burned more fuel and caused more wear on the engine. Who here cruised a 4 speed car in 3rd gear for better throttle response

Hi Shortround. The P-38 at the Planes of Fame is a P-38J-20-LO. So, although a P-38J, it doesn't have the boosted ailerons.

The other P-38 at Chino is a P-38L-5-LO and used to be named Honey Bunny. Not wearing a name these days.

Likely, you already knew that ...

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Do they ever use the turbos on P-38 warbirds?

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Note - that maximum roll rate is at very low combat airspeed.

Additionally, that is a sustained roll rate after initial inertia and response time is overcome.

That would certainly enable the P-38J-25/L to maneuver better than previous models but would not compare well with FW 190. Two factors that mitigate the enhanced roll rate are a.) initial reaction time from control input to initial roll acceleration due to large inertia of the large P-38, b.) same factor when a reversal is desired.

It was nothing to write home about above 300mph TAS.

Lockheed original P-38L data (not this chart) explicitly states 100 degrees per seconds past 400 mph TRUE Airspeed. And slower at all lower speeds. There is no other in-service WWII fighter that even comes close.

The P-38J chart posted in this thread has nearly DOUBLE the roll speed of these values, which does indicate continuous rolls, but STILL...

It states 0.5 sec to 90 degrees at 350 mph INDICATED, then it goes to to 0.4 sec in the 400 to 500 mph INDICATED range...

That is a continuous rolling speed of 180 degrees to 200 degrees per second in a continuous roll.

Given this, I have NO trouble believing the original Lockheed P-38L data for dead start rolls at a peak of 100 degrees per second at 400-500 mph TRUE airspeed, (at 10 000 feet).

Not that I trust NACA 868 for anything, but at least for the 190A I will assume here 868 is indicative of the 190A for continuous rolls:


At 360 IAS, where the P-38J is at 180 degrees per second in similar continuous rolls(!) the 190A is quoted as barely at 90 degree per second...

The P-38J then gets better while the 190 gets worse...

The "real" Lockheed dead-start data is already in the 90 dps range at those speeds, and gets even better (100 dps) with more speed, while the 190 continuous roll drops into the 70 dps range at 390 ias.

Even generously assuming the 190A has the short chord ailerons option (most pilots by 1944 chose long chord), at best it rolled at 70 dps at 350 ias where the P-38J is at 90, and by 400 mph ias (roughly 460 TAS at 10k) the 190A is likely down to a measly 50-60 dps where the boosted P-38L still rises to 100 dps.

Past 350 mph ias, or 400 mph tas, the 190A is still decent (though anecdotes have the ailerons very heavy) but nowhere near the roll of a boosted P-38J/L. The reason you never hear about this is because these speeds are extremely rare in combat, and do not last even when they happen. As the chart shows, the P-38 boosted roll rate hardly stopped rising with speed, which makes perfect sense given the added mass to move and the inhuman strength of power boosting..

 

[Steamed_Banana]

with that rate of roll, rather than reversing you could theoretically roll all the way around to whichever direction your opponent had turned to, by going in the opposite direction. Especially against say, a Bf 109G at higher speed...

I'm not saying this is necessarily practical but it seems like it might be in some circumstances, especially during vertical maneuvers.

 

[Frog]

I would also add though, that the Army not just blindly following Lockheed's advice isn't as crazy as it seems, as Lockheed was not acknowledging the compressibility and electrical and some of the fuel related or cooling related (?) turbo / engine problems that the Army pilots were reporting for a long time, and didn't seem to recognize the heater issue either.

There was a serious communication breakdown between the front lines and the arms contractor which was lasting far longer than it should have, kind of like with the Mark 13 and Mark 14 torpedoes.

The torpedo scandal was not to be accounted to the manufacturers or contractors (American Can, Pontiac Motor Co, E. W. Bliss Company, and Precision Manufacturing Co) but to the stubborness of the Navy Bureau of Ordnance.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The torpedo scandal was not to be accounted to the manufacturers or contractors (American Can, Pontiac Motor Co, E. W. Bliss Company, and Precision Manufacturing Co) but to the stubborness of the Navy Bureau of Ordnance.

You can debate who gets the blame in the specific case of those two weapons, but the pattern is a constant. Somebody is making money making something in the US that the troops are using and it doesn't work, or has serious problems, and it takes far longer than it should to fix the problem. Sometimes the issue is more on the administrative side, sometimes corporate, sometimes it's blatant malfeasance or corruption, sometimes incompetence or willfullness, but it's an ongoing issue for the US.

 

[pbehn]

You can debate who gets the blame in the specific case of those two weapons, but the pattern is a constant. Somebody is making money making something in the US that the troops are using and it doesn't work, or has serious problems, and it takes far longer than it should to fix the problem. Sometimes the issue is more on the administrative side, sometimes corporate, sometimes it's blatant malfeasance or corruption, sometimes incompetence or willfullness, but it's an ongoing issue for the US.

Nonsense.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Nonsense.

Ok. Well, just during WW2 we have the many P-38 problems we've been discussing here, problem with the P-47, the Mk 13 and Mk 14 torpedoes, the Brewster Buccaneer, the Curtiss Seamew, the many well-known Curtiss SB2C Helldiver problems, the problems with the Curtiss C-46 commando, their many failed attempts to replace the P-40 lke the P-46 and P-60, the Bell P-39 and failed experiments like the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda, the failure of the US 20mm aircraft cannons, the various problems with the GE turbos.

The Armalite M-16 was a big one during during Vietnam (and the M-60 wasn't much better), and there was the M551 Sheridan tank and a bunch of other failed gear. For just of a few of the post WW2 aircraft scandals we can look at the Vought F7U Cutlass, the Northrop F-89 Scorpion (see Battle of Palmdale) the $700 million (in 1964 dollars) B-70 Valkyrie, the failed A-12 Avenger, most of the Century series fighters like the Convair F-102 and the F-104 Starfighter (see Lockheed bribery scandals)

Then we have all the $7000 coffee makers on the C-5 Galaxy, the spare parts scandals with the C-17 etc., the problems and many fatal crashes with the V-22 Osprey, the electrocuting showers in the Iraq war, the canceled $7 billion Commanche helicopter program, the many issues with the Littoral Combat Ship, the many problems with the EMALS catapult system on the CVN-78 Gerald Ford, etc. etc. the cancellation of many other expensive projects like the XM2001 Crusader howitzer, the XM1203 howitzer, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (I was rooting for that one) the M10 Booker light tank, and about half a dozen attempts at improved small arms.

The US makes lots of good kit, but they do have a history of graft and corruption along with a host of other problems in weapons procurement. Each nation has their own peculiar advantages and disadvantages, IMO this is one of the biggest challenges faced by the US.