Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Later when the real Merlin Mustangs DID go about 25mph faster at almost all altitudes than the Spit IX, much eating of words occured, so I can well imagine that if you are asked to give a view on the performance of a plane you have not ordered, unless you have the morals of a saint, you`re just going to find a way to hate it.
They ended up borrowing over 400.
It was more complicated to handle than the Merlin P 51 but that can be said for all American engines.Fellas, given that the P-38 is my favourite, I might be biased plus that being in haste, have read only the first 2 pages here. But, a few notes:
1. It is quite odd to claim that the P-38 was much more complicated to handle. Not exactly so. I encourage to take a look at the P-38J/L pilot manual vs. F6F-5 manual. In combat, a P-38 pilot needs to control throttles, rpm and mixture. Since in combat the mixture has to be auto-rich, that can be forgotten. All cooling flaps are automatic, as are the turbochargers (no need to operate turbos via a separate control). In the case of the Hellcat, the pilot needs to handle throttle, rpm, cowl flaps, intercooler flaps, oil cooler flaps and supercharger lever (3 positions). So, which is actually the more complicated to handle?
2. Complicated maintenance. Was it much more complicated than the P-47? The British AFDU report states that the routine maintenance is very easy with excellent access to armament, engines etc. (except for radio).
3. The very same report speaks very positively about its manoeuvreability, despite the very high wing-loading.
4. Critical Mach number. Yes, definitely much lower than that of the Mustang. But, compare to the much-praised F8F and then, the difference isn't that great.
The claim that the P38 was the first aircraft to achieve 400 Mph in level flight is not true. The prototype was never properly tested before its ill fated flight which was also dubious in its claims of 400 mph. The often quoted 413 was a paper calculation by Hibbert including a lot of unlikely assumptions. See Bodie.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 thoseubiuos in its claim of 400 mph. The often quoted 413 mph was a paper number calculated by Hubert based on all sorts of dubious asunptions. b 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?
It wasn't the first aircraft to go over 400 MPH, it was the first COMBAT aircraft (1939) to go over 400 MPH, this achieved during it's coast to coast run, but more than likely the times the aircraft achieved this was with a tail wind.The claim that the P38 was the first aircraft to achieve 400 Mph in level flight is not true. The prototype was never properly tested before its ill fated flight which was also dubious in its claims of 400 mph. The often quoted 413 was a paper calculation by Hibbert including a lot of unlikely assumptions. See Bodie.
Also note that the cooling system was 1/2 the size of the Y series making sustained high speed flight impossible.
Putting a Spitfire Mk XIV and a Hurricane MkI in the same flyability group is a bit of a stretch.By the way, there is an American report on Mike's site in which it is mentioned that British fighters (Spitfire and Hurricane) were much simpler to fly than American contemporaries thanks to automatic controls. There seems to have been a great reluctance among Americans towards automatic controls as can be noted from the Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944.
Ooops! A tailwind isn't going to affect your Indicated Air Speed, and I have a hard time imagining ANY Hurricane INDICATING that much speed. Ground speed of 408 I can readily believe. I can remember cold winter nights BUF -> ALB or BUF -> BOS at FL250 indicating 230, truing 250+, and showing 400 on the DME, thanks to the jetstream.
- On 10 February 1938 a Hurricane Mk 1, assisted by a very strong tailwind, flew from Turnhouse, Edinburgh to Northolt in 48 minutes at an average indicated air speed of 408.75 mph, earning its pilot Squadron Leader John W Gillan the soubriquet 'Downwind Gillan'.
I took it from here RAF Legends: the Hawker Hurricane Turnhouse is near Edinburgh and Northolt is near London, they are approx 400 miles apart.Ooops! A tailwind isn't going to affect your Indicated Air Speed, and I have a hard time imagine ANY Hurricane INDICATING that much speed. Ground speed of 408 I can readily believe. I can remember cold winter nights BUF -> ALB or BUF -> BOS at FL250 indicating 230, truing 250+, and showing 400 on the DME, thanks to the jetstream.
The Spitfire mark was an early one in the test.Putting a Spitfire Mk XIV and a Hurricane MkI in the same flyability group is a bit of a stretch.
I havnt seen it do you have a link? The first P-39s and P-40s just werent sorted machines. While the P-38 was a twin fighter and the P-47 was a 2000+ HP beast.The Spitfire mark was an early one in the test.
The problem the Japanese found themselves with at the end of 1942 was their training infrastructure could not keep up with attrition.I'm still at a loss as to why some still say Japan had lost all their veteran/good pilots by the end of 1942, which totally denigrates what the P-38 accomplished.
To me that's no different than the nonsense that the P-51 just "mopped up" a bunch of trainees in 1944 in the ETO.
The Japanese knew going in that they couldn't possibly win a war of attrition with the US no matter what they did. They basically put all their chips in at the beginning with the hope that the US would negoiate a peace treaty. An extremely aggressive strategy was their only chance hence the emphasis on the immediate needs, the long term is bleak no matter what. If the Japanese have to start escorting convoys and training large numbers of pilots they have already lost the war.The problem the Japanese found themselves with at the end of 1942 was their training infrastructure could not keep up with attrition.
Hardly.P-40s WERE top cover for P-39s.
Read the after mission reports of 18th and 49th FG in SWP and 325th in MTO in support of P-400/P-39 strikes.Hardly.