How good (or bad) was the P-38, really?

[NTGray]

I have some questions about the P-38, and I'm inviting comments.

I've always considered the Lightning a super cool craft, both because of the way it looks and performs and because it was one of the earliest products of Kelly Johnson's team at Lockheed which would become known as the Skunk Works. It was the first combat airplane to achieve 400 mph in level flight. And even though it came out before the P-40 and the P-39, both of those planes ceased production in 1944, but the Lightning was good enough to be produced throughout the entire war.

But only fairly recently have I been reading much about its mediocre reputation in the European theater of operations. Seems that a lot of American and British pilots and generals didn't think highly of it, and some German pilots considered it an "easy kill" even though others counted it a worthy and dangerous foe. I know it was popular and successful in the Pacific theater, but now I'm wondering if any of that success was because the Japanese flying forces had already been gravely weakened by 1943 through loss of good pilots, even before the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. (Perhaps the Turkey Shoot was the result of the deterioration of Japanese air power, rather than the cause of it, as has often been suggested?)

Anyway, how good (or bad) was the P-38, really?

 

[Peter Gunn]

I would attribute the P-38's success in the Pacific to it being clearly superior to anything the Japanese were fielding, not to the loss of veteran Japanese pilots. They still had plenty of good ones in 1943.

Against the Luftwaffe it did OK, different theater, different enemy, different environment all around for the most part. In the Pacific it was around ~80+MPH faster than the IJN/IJA fighters it was stacked up against. Most marques of the Bf-109 and Fw-190 were faster and could dive better, but it was still a dangerous foe in the right hands such as Robin Olds.

 

[pbehn]

Until you have something better its hard to criticise it. It was very versatile and later models with powered ailerons and extended range were good aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good discussion on one of my favorite aircraft. I will put out a disclaimer, I am a bit of a fanboy but do recognize this aircraft's shortcomings. I worked at Lockheed's Burbank facility in some of the same buildings where P-38s were produced and worked with people who built and flew them. I think it's an understatement to say that the P-38 ushered in a whole new dimension in aerial combat when it was first designed, primarily in it's speed, range and operating altitude and all the issues that come along with operating a then super advanced aircraft in a new environment. I think the biggest drawback of the aircraft lied with the operator as it went into service. There was not a dedicated training path for high performance twin engine aircraft, let alone the P-38. This combined to the complexity of the aircraft, let alone the compressibility issue let to many accidents, especially with green pilots. I do know that some of the better P-38 pilots who survived getting checked out in the aircraft managed to get several hundred hours in aircraft like the B-25 or A-20.

As mentioned many times on here, I heard Kelly Johnson speak about the P-38, Lockheed thought they would never produce more than 70 aircraft, but that abruptly changed.

 

[NTGray]

There was not a dedicated training path for high performance twin engine aircraft, let alone the P-38. This combined to the complexity of the aircraft, let alone the compressibility issue let to many accidents, especially with green pilots. I do know that some of the better P-38 pilots who survived getting checked out in the aircraft managed to get several hundred hours in aircraft like the B-25 or A-20.

Yeah, some of what I read talked about that complexity, to the point that if a P-38 got jumped, the pilot had to do so many different things to prepare to fight that he could get shot down while he was still flipping switches.
And the compressibility problem. . .it seems that the -38 was faster than anything else in level flight (and could out-turn the Me's and FW's), but the German planes could dive faster and had a better roll rate.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-38 had a wingspan of 52 feet, so it really was in the league of the "Zerstorers" aka "Heavy Fighters" like the Bf110 and KI-45, so it's prowess as a dog-fighter was not going to be on the level of a Bf109, A6M or Fw190.

Instead, it was an energy fighter, using it's speed to overwhelm it's adversary.
In the Pacific particularly, the A6M (and KI-43) was a fantastic turning fighter - at low speeds. Once the Zero was forced to fight the P-38 on it's terms, the Zero was at a huge disadvantage.
In the ETO, the Luftwaffe's tactics tended to retain higher energy in confrontations, reducing the P-38's advantage to a degree.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah, some of what I read talked about that complexity, to the point that if a P-38 got jumped, the pilot had to do so many different things to prepare to fight that he could get shot down while he was still flipping switches.

IMO, that was an exaggeration. Sure it was a complex aircraft, it had 2 engines! Two of everything! And you train for this. Compare the P-38's cockpit to the Beaufighter, Mosquito, Bf110 and Ki-45. Lot's of switches and gauges but you'll find a lot of this stuff was located in the same or similar places

 

[GregP]

When the P-38 comes up, we need to keep several things in mind.
1) There was no "operational fighter training."
2) The early P-38s were mis-jetted for European fuel.
3) The P-38 was literally almost unheated until the electric heater was installed.
4) The Allison had a couple of early faults.

Suppose a newbie P-38 pilot was cruising along in his mint P-38 and got attacked from ambush. He needed to"
a) Turn on his gunsight.
b) Pull both throttles back a bit ...
c) Bring up the rpm to full (3,000 rpm) on both prop controls.
d) Throttle up to military power on both throttles.

By this time, he was already hit or shot down.

P-38 pilots learned the hard way to come into a suspected area of combat encounters ready for combat.

I have beaten the fuel issue to death in here before. It wasn't an issue later, but it WAS when the P-38 first got to Europe. European fuels didn't have the same aromatic mixture at first, so the American airplane were not properly jetted for it. After a standard formulation was agreed to, it wasn't an issue any longer. The exact timeframe is somewhat unclear.

The early Allisons had very smooth intake tracks, and the air-fuel mixture tended to separate and the flow was not even to all cylinders. Adding turbulators in the intake track solved this problem.

Early (and likely medium) P-38 pilots were VERY COLD on missions because the heater used hot air from an exhaust shroud and, by the time it got to the cockpit, it wasn't warm anymore. A good story was told when Lockheed sent Tony Levier over to England to demo the P-38 for the combat pilots. He did a good demo, and one of the combat pilots was overheard to say, "That's a pretty good show! I'd like to see him do that after being at 25,000 feet for three hours! He'd be frozen, like we are!"

So, the early P-38s had a few issues that were worked out. But no combat training can only be cured by exposure to combat and sound tactics. I'm pretty sure that later P-38 pilots were MUCH better trained but, by that time, most of the few P-38s left in the ETO were recce birds. The rest were in the Med and PTO.

It's worth remembering that the top two US pilots (Bong and McGuire) of the war, if you take combat record as an indicator, flew P-38s, not P-51s or F6Fs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My understanding is that the engines had trouble with the high cold air in ETO, whereas in SWPac, with fights lower in the atmosphere, the issue wasn't nearly so problematic. Mach issues were reduced as a result.

The plane itself, as noted above, was a burner and not a turner (at least until the flaps were added to later models). BnZ worked well against Japanese planes and doctrine, not so much against LW planes and doctrine. Hard to dive out of trouble against LW bounces.

It's one of my favorite WWII airplanes precisely because it was so outré. It's both beautiful and ridiculous in appearance, but was formidably fast, formidably armed, and just plain weird.

 

[nuuumannn]

This'll be interesting. I have a fondness for the P-38, but I know very little about it. It sure does look sexy though.

P-38

DSC_0559

So, how does it compare to the P-39?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My understanding is that the engines had trouble with the high cold air in ETO, whereas in SWPac, with fights lower in the atmosphere, the issue wasn't nearly so problematic. Mach issues were reduced as a result.

The plane itself, as noted above, was a burner and not a turner (at least until the flaps were added to later models). BnZ worked well against Japanese planes and doctrine, not so much against LW planes and doctrine. Hard to dive out of trouble against LW bounces.

It's one of my favorite WWII airplanes precisely because it was so outré. It's both beautiful and ridiculous in appearance, but was formidably fast, formidably armed, and just plain weird.

Mach issues were an issue everywhere. Ken Sparks, one of the early top P-38 drivers in the SWP with 11 victory credits was killed in a P-38 as it went into a terminal dive over Muroc AFB (Edwards) 1944.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mach issues were an issue everywhere. Ken Sparks, one of the early top P-38 drivers in the SWP with 11 victory credits was killed in a P-38 as it went into a terminal dive over Muroc AFB (Edwards) 1944.

Understood. The P-47 also lost a few tails to the issue, if I remember rightly. The fact that Mach limits, and associated flutter in a dive, are easier to hit higher up was a learning experience for everyone.

That being said, your point above about the P-38 being groundbreaking is apt, in that it was also the first plane to experience these issues (to my knowledge), and forced the engineers to work a little more. This gave us more knowledge ... at a price.

Doesn't change my love for the plane, quirky as it was.

 

[33k in the air]

The plane itself, as noted above, was a burner and not a turner (at least until the flaps were added to later models).

Here is an interesting passage from John A. Tilley, who flew the P-38 in the 457th Fighter Group in the Pacific theater. It starts with him remarking on how in training the instructors warned him not to engage in a turning fight with a Japanese fighter, and then telling of an encounter in which one moment he was behind a Zero and the next it was coming at him head-on. Then he says:

"Alright, so how come I got my second kill by turning a full 360-degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the Jap and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got in a jam. And I'm sure the Jap figured his usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control into a spin, as with a single engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to hit him hard."

The above appears on page 47 of The Great Book of World War II Airplanes (multiple authors).

 

[Shortround6]

So, how does it compare to the P-39?

Well, if we take out the nose armor.............

The Red Bull plane is certainly pretty (and more functional) than most WW II P-38s.
But it uses a combination of parts (pointy nose nacelles) ram air inlets more like a P-40s or P-51
No turbos. Radiator housings are from which model?

A lot more useful on the airshow circuit.

WW II P-38s went from 1150-1225hp engines to 1600-1700hp in War Emergency and used 3 different turbos from the P-38E to the P-38J/L/M.

A lot of room for variations in performance.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here is an interesting passage from John A. Tilley, who flew the P-38 in the 457th Fighter Group in the Pacific theater. It starts with him remarking on how in training the instructors warned him not to engage in a turning fight with a Japanese fighter, and then telling of an encounter in which one moment he was behind a Zero and the next it was coming at him head-on. Then he says:

"Alright, so how come I got my second kill by turning a full 360-degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the Jap and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got in a jam. And I'm sure the Jap figured his usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control into a spin, as with a single engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to hit him hard."

The above appears on page 47 of The Great Book of World War II Airplanes (multiple authors).

!2 on 2 certainly makes the tactic less chancy. Throw a little high yo-yo in while the enemy's got his head swiveling, yeah, you've got the power for it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here is an interesting passage from John A. Tilley, who flew the P-38 in the 457th Fighter Group in the Pacific theater. It starts with him remarking on how in training the instructors warned him not to engage in a turning fight with a Japanese fighter, and then telling of an encounter in which one moment he was behind a Zero and the next it was coming at him head-on. Then he says:

"Alright, so how come I got my second kill by turning a full 360-degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the Jap and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got in a jam. And I'm sure the Jap figured his usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control into a spin, as with a single engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to hit him hard."

The above appears on page 47 of The Great Book of World War II Airplanes (multiple authors).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So, how does it compare to the P-39?

I see where you're going!

Actually many top P-38 PTO aces had time in P-39s and some did quite well in them. Tom Lynch, Tom McGuire, Jack Jones, Donald McGee to name a few. Actually the P-39 did hold it's own to a point (as I said many times before) but it was limited in range and altitude performance. When the P-38 arrived in numbers the whole face of the battle changed, several memorable air battles took place at the end of December 1942 when Bong, Lynch, and Sparks scored multiple kills as the P-38 flew it's first combat missions. At that point the writing was on the wall.

 

[Shortround6]

Rightly or wrongly the USAAC viewed the P-38 as their premier fighter in 1942 and early 1943.
A lot of confusion surrounds in use in the ETO as at least two groups were declared operational and 3rd was working up in England in the fall of 1942.
However both operational groups were sent to North Africa for Operation Torch and the 3rd group gave up their planes and some of their pilots as replacements.
This is from memory and may be off a bit.
The P-38s completed just over 300 sorties in Europe in the fall 1942 and would not show up in Europe again (operationally) until the fall of 1943.
There may have been some recon versions.

P-38s fought all over the Pacific and in NA and Italy in late 1942 and through the first 3/4s of 1943 before they returned to to England.

Some of their troubles have to be seen in that light. Darn little experience in B-17 bomber escort in European winters until many months after the P-51B entered production.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I see where you're going!

Actually many top P-38 PTO aces had time in P-39s and some did quite well in them. Tom Lynch, Tom McGuire, Jack Jones, Donald McGee to name a few. Actually the P-39 did hold it's own to a point (as I said many times before) but it was limited in range and altitude performance. When the P-38 arrived in numbers the whole face of the battle changed, several memorable air battles took place at the end of December 1942 when Bong, Lynch, and Sparks scored multiple kills as the P-38 flew it's first combat missions. At that point the writing was on the wall.

And those American pilots who'd fought hard in the -39 now had the relative luxury of a P-38, I think. A school-of-hard-knocks thing the way I see it; if you can survive fighting the Japanese in an Airacobra, you'll probably do well in a Lightning.

 

[33k in the air]

!2 on 2 certainly makes the tactic less chancy. Throw a little high yo-yo in while the enemy's got his head swiveling, yeah, you've got the power for it.

I though the reference to the lack of torque being an advantage an interesting one. I also recall reading somewhere how differential power application to the engines could also help tighten turns.