Effectiveness of the P-38 (4 Viewers)

[Greg Boeser]

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.

Do you think corruption, bad planning, cronyism, fighting the last war, and other bad behaviors are unique to America? Ha!
When I was working with German Luftwaffe troops training in the Roswell, White Sands, Ft. Bliss areas during the Roving Sands excercises back in the 90's they contrasted their experiences in the US with other European countries. One comment was, whenever they did training in a country south of the Alps, they had to budget in a slush fund for bribes.

 

[pbehn]

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.

It is unclear whether you are discussing WW2 history or a present day conspiracy theory, where every mistake or misunderstanding while conducting a war thousands of miles away in many different theatres is seen as an example of "bomber mafia" type corruption. Amazingly despite all this grift graft malfeasance and corruption the USA managed to have equipment that was a match or a quantum leap better than both its enemies and allies.

 

[pbehn]

Do you think corruption, bad planning, cronyism, fighting the last war, and other bad behaviors are unique to America? Ha!
When I was working with German Luftwaffe troops training in the Roswell, White Sands, Ft. Bliss areas during the Roving Sands excercises back in the 90's they contrasted their experiences in the US with other European countries. One comment was, whenever they did training in a country south of the Alps, they had to budget in a slush fund for bribes.

You dont need to look very hard at European procurement to find massive over expenditure on completely crap "kit" Frequently only a few are made just to prove it can be done.

 

[Shortround6]

Blaming ever failed program on graft/corruption is a very, very broad brush indeed. Especially over 60-80 years.
Also don't believe everything you read in papers/media.
Sometimes the military was guilty of over spec-ing things. They got carried away with their own cleverness. They also sometimes wanted production weapons well before they had the actual working technology. M551 Sheriden was a prime example of this.
As an example the F-89 might have a been a so-so bomber interreceptor when it was designed which was in 1945. The first 210(?) used 6 20mm cannon and the rocket system didn't show up until near the end of 1951 (ordered, delivery took a while). Now was Northrop responsible for the rocket system? Or was the Air force? Was Northrop forced to use the rocket system in order to get orders for the F-89D? Please remember that the same rockets were being loaded into the F-86D, the F-94C, and were planned for the F-102 (fall back system) and perhaps a few others.
Northrop built the aircraft, Hughes built the fire control system, The rockets have been developed by the US Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Center and manufactured by a around 6 different companies or more. different companies supplied different components.
The System was a failure, but whose failure?
Look at the C-5A coffee maker
What is rarely published is that it was a huge "beverage maker" (could be used for soup?) of several hundred cup capacity (think very large catering coffee urn) that was supposed to survive a several G crash. Perhaps it was overkill but spraying several dozen gallons of hot liquid around the cabin in a bad landing might not have looked good in the press either.
we could go over the whole list but there is a fair amount of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

 

[GregP]

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

I know there is one P-47 (on the east coast) thath has a functioning turbocharger.

I have heard there is one P-38 with good units, but have never confirmed that. A really easy way to tell is the little intake on the fuselage boom just behind and slightly under the wing trailing edge. If it is plugged, then no functioning turbo. If it is open, then they at least want you think there is a functioning turbo. All the ones I know personally, and that would be five, have been modified so the center scoop in the nacelle is the carb intake and the original turbo intake described above is blocked off. See below. The center duct used today for carb air used to be the intercooler intake to cool the air-fuel charge between the turbo and the supercharger.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Do you think corruption, bad planning, cronyism, fighting the last war, and other bad behaviors are unique to America? Ha!

Never said it was unique, but this cluster of issues does seem to be a recurring problem with the US, and US companies seem to be harder to reign in than in most other nations.

Other nations have other types of problems along similar lines.

When I was working with German Luftwaffe troops training in the Roswell, White Sands, Ft. Bliss areas during the Roving Sands excercises back in the 90's they contrasted their experiences in the US with other European countries. One comment was, whenever they did training in a country south of the Alps, they had to budget in a slush fund for bribes.

Well, we have that too, most recently see the "Fat Leonard" scandal with the US Navy

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Blaming ever failed program on graft/corruption is a very, very broad brush indeed. Especially over 60-80 years.

I wasn't trying to be that definitive, just providing some examples to make it clear it's not 'nonsense', we do have a recurring issue.

Also don't believe everything you read in papers/media.
Sometimes the military was guilty of over spec-ing things. They got carried away with their own cleverness. They also sometimes wanted production weapons well before they had the actual working technology. M551 Sheriden was a prime example of this.

This can indeed be a big part of the problem. The whole issue with the elevator and resulting size limit was a major issue with the SB2C. Many modern procurement programs have basically died because they specced too many things into the design and / or started production too early (which may be part of the issue with the Osprey)

As an example the F-89 might have a been a so-so bomber interreceptor when it was designed which was in 1945. The first 210(?) used 6 20mm cannon and the rocket system didn't show up until near the end of 1951 (ordered, delivery took a while). Now was Northrop responsible for the rocket system? Or was the Air force? Was Northrop forced to use the rocket system in order to get orders for the F-89D? Please remember that the same rockets were being loaded into the F-86D, the F-94C, and were planned for the F-102 (fall back system) and perhaps a few others.

All I can say is if you read that description I linked to the "Battle of Palmdale", i gotta say it's for the best that we never had to use the F-89 (with the rockets) to shoot down actual Soviet bombers...

Northrop built the aircraft, Hughes built the fire control system, The rockets have been developed by the US Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Center and manufactured by a around 6 different companies or more. different companies supplied different components.
The System was a failure, but whose failure?

I'm sure it could be interesting to look into, I bet there is plenty of blame to go around. The taxpayer was the loser ultimately.

Look at the C-5A coffee maker
What is rarely published is that it was a huge "beverage maker" (could be used for soup?) of several hundred cup capacity (think very large catering coffee urn) that was supposed to survive a several G crash. Perhaps it was overkill but spraying several dozen gallons of hot liquid around the cabin in a bad landing might not have looked good in the press either.
we could go over the whole list but there is a fair amount of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

I have a lot of questions... because it seems to defy common sense, but sure. It was a wide net, just making a broad point, it's not necessarily something I'm trying to delve into in this thread particularly. I do think it's a recurring issue in the US though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What is rarely published is that it was a huge "beverage maker" (could be used for soup?) of several hundred cup capacity (think very large catering coffee urn) that was supposed to survive a several G crash. Perhaps it was overkill but spraying several dozen gallons of hot liquid around the cabin in a bad landing might not have looked good in the press either.
we could go over the whole list but there is a fair amount of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

I have a sudden and inexplicable desire for a cup of "Instant Lunch" ramen right now, with a little butter and hot sauce in it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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

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

This is why WWII turbochargers were more suited to bombers than fighters. In a non turbo engine if you want to stay alive when flying over enemy territory it is better to keep the engine revs up and the boost low. This allows much quicker response if you are bounced. You don't have to overcome the inertia of all the reciprocating and rotating parts. This is exactly what Spitfire V pilots were instructed to do after the appearance of the FW 190. As Drgondog pointed out what might be viable in the Pacific might not be the best plan over Europe.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Look at the C-5A coffee maker
What is rarely published is that it was a huge "beverage maker" (could be used for soup?) of several hundred cup capacity (think very large catering coffee urn) that was supposed to survive a several G crash. Perhaps it was overkill but spraying several dozen gallons of hot liquid around the cabin in a bad landing might not have looked good in the press either.
we could go over the whole list but there is a fair amount of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

I always though the 6G requirement was to allow the crash investigators to keep caffeinated .

 

[Greg Boeser]

I always though the 6G requirement was to allow the crash investigators to keep caffeinated .

Priorities. Priorities.

 

[BiffF15]

Do you think corruption, bad planning, cronyism, fighting the last war, and other bad behaviors are unique to America? Ha!
When I was working with German Luftwaffe troops training in the Roswell, White Sands, Ft. Bliss areas during the Roving Sands excercises back in the 90's they contrasted their experiences in the US with other European countries. One comment was, whenever they did training in a country south of the Alps, they had to budget in a slush fund for bribes.

Small world, as I did the first (IIRC) of those Roving Sands Exercises. We flew nights out of Biggs AAF.

 

[Shortround6]

You don't have to overcome the inertia of all the reciprocating and rotating parts. This is exactly what Spitfire V pilots were instructed to do after the appearance of the FW 190.

Not really. The Spitfire pilots were given a list of possible rpms and boost levels for the same speeds at different altitudes that would give the lowest fuel burns.
They were certainly instructed to fly faster as it took a Spitfire V a couple minutes to go from slow cruise to full speed.
Using a faster cruise speed at lower rpm and higher boost combination still allowed tactical flexibility while keeping the fuel burn either the same or lower.

Actual speed/s of the unit/formation were selected based on the expected threat level. High threat meant high speed (2650rpm and +5lbs ?) but a lower threat might call for 2000rpm and 3 3/4lbs instead of 2650rpm and 2lbs of boost. Same airspeed but less fuel burn. Getting from 280mph to 340mph + was going to take a while regardless of engine rpm at start but trying to go from 225mph to 340mph was going to be a lot slower even if the engine was doing 2650rpm at -3lbs.

Problem with the P-38s, especially once you get to the later versions was that the turbo maxed out at 26,300-26,400rpm.
If the plane was cruising at high RPM and low boost the turbo bypass (waste gate) was mostly open and the turbo was down the low teens (?). You are in real turbo lag land if you are flying higher than 20,000ft. You need the turbo to make high power. Without the turbo you are lucky to have 800hp per engine at 20,000ft. With the turbo, even if only turning in the high teens, you have more power even if the engine is not quite up to the full 3000rpm.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This is why WWII turbochargers were more suited to bombers than fighters. In a non turbo engine if you want to stay alive when flying over enemy territory it is better to keep the engine revs up and the boost low. This allows much quicker response if you are bounced. You don't have to overcome the inertia of all the reciprocating and rotating parts. This is exactly what Spitfire V pilots were instructed to do after the appearance of the FW 190. As Drgondog pointed out what might be viable in the Pacific might not be the best plan over Europe.

This reminds me of a thread i want to start...

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I have a sudden and inexplicable desire for a cup of "Instant Lunch" ramen right now, with a little butter and hot sauce in it.

I actually flew on a C-5, and had coffee on it, they never gave us any food though and it was a long flight... ramen would have been wonderful.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

(I should note, USAAF flight crews are remarkably sensitive to, and aggressive about the merest implication that they have any resemblance to the role of 'stewardesses')

 

[Frog]

Do you think corruption, bad planning, cronyism, fighting the last war, and other bad behaviors are unique to America? Ha!
When I was working with German Luftwaffe troops training in the Roswell, White Sands, Ft. Bliss areas during the Roving Sands excercises back in the 90's they contrasted their experiences in the US with other European countries. One comment was, whenever they did training in a country south of the Alps, they had to budget in a slush fund for bribes.

Maybe did we cross paths at Fort Bliss, I was invited at the local Rod and Gun Club in 1997.

 

[frankv]

I really like the P-38, but "the most effective fighter?"

Now, I'm starting to have a bit of doubt.

It definitely has better engine-out performance than any single-engine fighter and it climbs quite well but ...

... it has nearly twice the likelihood of an engine failure.

 

[frankv]

I'm thinking "effectiveness" is not the same as "cost-effectiveness."

Cost-effectiveness also needs to consider the likelihood of returning from battle/patrol. Whilst the P-38 cost much more than a single engined fighter, and was much more likely to have a single engine failure, it was also much more likely to return to base if a single engine failed. In which case, the whole aircraft (and pilot) didn't need to be replaced.

OTOH, a single engine failure would take any fighter out of whatever fight it was in., and of course is about twice as likely on the P-38.

Roll rates and so on aren't terribly important if you have the tactical initiative, so you can choose to engage or not. A higher ceiling than your enemy gives you that initiative. Then it's more about pilot tactics, e.g. boom and zoom, which use their aircraft's advantages and negate their disadvantages.

Finally, a nugget I picked up from a P-38 accident report (https://share.google/i6Y9bNpbNKMGhYEOs). The P-38 was a complex aircraft to fly. For example, normal procedure is to take off on reserve tanks, then switch to main tanks, which are aft of the reserve tanks. The pilot failed to switch to mains, 44 minutes later the reserve tanks ran out, then it stalled and entered an unrecoverable flat spin due to aft CG.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It's also much more likely to have an engine still running after battle damage on one of those long flights back to base.

Roll rates are generally important. Boom and zoom isn't as easy as it sounds, and most of the good BnZ fighters, like the P-51B/C/D, the Corsair, the Fw 190 etc., had a good roll rate.