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

[wuzak]

How about looking to sources of 8th AF missions, followed by RAF, beginning May 12, 1944. You should acquire Mighty Eighth War Diary by Freeman, Actual knowledge based on facts should help remove the many misconceptions you bring here. Oh, that is the 'official start date of the 'Oil Plan' execution.

I'm afraid that was my mistake Bill. It was I that said that the Oil Plan officially started after D-Day, going from my (faulty) memory.

However, it still disproves his claim that in 1944 the P-51 encountered novice pilots who couldn't train due to lack of fuel because the supply was destroyed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

He was not. The thought that the german claiming systeem was airtight has been proven wrong many times. Plse read the link. It is no wonder Hartmann was not popular during ww2 and after 45 in his new job. There is a reason he was not made a general post war i think.

Agree - I knew one former F-104 driver who knew him during the 60s, said he was a great pilot but not a pleasant person at times.

If those were his only overclaims that is much less than the average.

They weren't - there are several researchers (who have no agendas) who put his actual score between 120 and 130. As stated, 45% accurate!

 

[Conslaw]

I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe. They also seem to resent that it just so happens that the P-51B was perfectly suited for the escort role the P-38H&J weren't.

It's also true that the commanders in the 8th Air Force could have taken measures to make both the P-38 and the P-47 more effective escorts earlier. The P-47 could have had droptanks earlier. General Kenney managed to get good droptanks to his Thunderbolts in New Guinea well before the P-47s in England got them. It also doesn't seem that the 8th Air Force had their "A-team" working to solve the engine performance and cabin heating problems that marred early P-38 operations in the theater.

 

[pbehn]

I am still working on the math. If you count up all you have at the start thats 100% isnt it? And if you count what you have at the end that's 100%. So everyone starts and finishes with 100% and so its a draw?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe. They also seem to resent that it just so happens that the P-51B was perfectly suited for the escort role the P-38H&J weren't.

Well I'll tell you there's no resentment from this P-38 fan, the P-51B was the better weapon for the job, period! If there was no P-51, could latter model P-47s and P-38s fulfilled the role? IMO yes but at a greater cost in manpower, time and equipment. A big "what if." I think the only thing I resent were the "twin engine fighter haters" who didn't understand, want to deal with or accept the complexity of the P-38 or the extra time it took for training and made unjustified excuses

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe. They also seem to resent that it just so happens that the P-51B was perfectly suited for the escort role the P-38H&J weren't.

As noted above, I'm a fan of the P-38; but just like any weapon, the environment you use it in has a say in how effective it may be, and I think the flight conditions pertaining in ETO escort simply weren't great for the P-38; long times at high altitude hampered both engine and pilot, and of course the dive issues while defending bombers at 25k are more present.

Combat in MTO/PTO was lower-altitude than ETO, generally speaking, and that tended to mitigate the P-38's weaknesses, I think. I'm under little illusion about the P-38 in ETO, myself.

Again noted above, the German pilots' opinions of the plane speak as much or more about it in that theater; you can trust the enemy to tell the truth about your airplane, to their commanders, or to their diaries; and the P-38 didn't garner much respect from -190 or -109 drivers until caught in coffin-corner.

I'm sure glad the -51 matured into such a great plane. I don't see that as a slag against the Lightning.

 

[Shortround6]

It also doesn't seem that the 8th Air Force had their "A-team" working to solve the engine performance and cabin heating problems that marred early P-38 operations in the theater.

They may have had the "Z" team, part of the problems with P-38Js in early operations was that the intercooler worked too good.

That was combined with the pilots being instructed to "cruise" in a manor that was at odds with the way both Allison and Lockheed said the plane should be flown.

The Army was telling the pilots to cruise at high rpm and low boost (small throttle opening) so the engine would already be turning high rpm if the plane/formation was "bounced" and they could get to full power quicker. This was wrong on several points.

1. With the new "J" intercoolers the intake charge was over-cooled. With this throttle opening and propeller governor setting/s the turbo was closer to idle than full speed and turbo did not heat the intake charge much before it went through the intercooler. Result was fuel puddling in the intake manifolds and some of the heavy aromatics separating out. This caused all kinds of trouble when the throttles were slammed open to engage the enemy.

2. This technique didn't help throttle response all that much. It took a while for the turbo to reach full speed. The throttle/s may have been wide open but with the turbos still building up speed the manifold pressure was not what was wanted or needed.

3. This technique used more fuel for the same amount of power to the prop than running low rpm and high boost. Higher engine rpm means higher losses to internal friction for the same power to the prop.

The P-38 should have been "cruised" at low RPM and high boost. The Turbo would have been turning at closer to combat rpm and when the throttles were opened high manifold pressure (and high power for a given rpm) would have been available. The engines would have used less power to friction and used less fuel per hour giving longer range.
The intake charge would have been hotter and caused fewer problems with the fuel/air mixture being too cold.

This was part of what Tony Levier instructed P-38 pilots on when he went to Europe in 1944.

Wouldn't have solved the cockpit heat problem though.

That could have been solved by taking a few bean counters out behind the garden shed and whacking them upside the head with a large tree limb.
Saving the cost of a 2nd generator on a 100,000 dollar airplane that used as much electricity as the P-38 was pretty stupid. If the engine with the generator on the single generator versions went down the pilot was racing the depleting battery to get home and in a plane with electric propellers that is not a good thing.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They may have had the "Z" team, part of the problems with P-38Js in early operations was that the intercooler worked too good.

That was combined with the pilots being instructed to "cruise" in a manor that was at odds with the way both Allison and Lockheed said the plane should be flown.

The Army was telling the pilots to cruise at high rpm and low boost (small throttle opening) so the engine would already be turning high rpm if the plane/formation was "bounced" and they could get to full power quicker. This was wrong on several points.

1. With the new "J" intercoolers the intake charge was over-cooled. With this throttle opening and propeller governor setting/s the turbo was closer to idle than full speed and turbo did not heat the intake charge much before it went through the intercooler. Result was fuel puddling in the intake manifolds and some of the heavy aromatics separating out. This caused all kinds of trouble when the throttles were slammed open to engage the enemy.

2. This technique didn't help throttle response all that much. It took a while for the turbo to reach full speed. The throttle/s may have been wide open but with the turbos still building up speed the manifold pressure was not what was wanted or needed.

3. This technique used more fuel for the same amount of power to the prop than running low rpm and high boost. Higher engine rpm means higher losses to internal friction for the same power to the prop.

The P-38 should have been "cruised" at low RPM and high boost. The Turbo would have been turning at closer to combat rpm and when the throttles were opened high manifold pressure (and high power for a given rpm) would have been available. The engines would have used less power to friction and used less fuel per hour giving longer range.
The intake charge would have been hotter and caused fewer problems with the fuel/air mixture being too cold.

This was part of what Tony Levier instructed P-38 pilots on when he went to Europe in 1944.

Wouldn't have solved the cockpit heat problem though.

That could have been solved by taking a few bean counters out behind the garden shed and whacking them upside the head with a large tree limb.
Saving the cost of a 2nd generator on a 100,000 dollar airplane that used as much electricity as the P-38 was pretty stupid. If the engine with the generator on the single generator versions went down the pilot was racing the depleting battery to get home and in a plane with electric propellers that is not a good thing.

ShortRound shot the full course here, especially about the bean counters!

 

[nuuumannn]

'm sure glad the -51 matured into such a great plane. I don't see that as a slag against the Lightning.

Eggs-actly, as has been said in another thread, just because what's being introduced is better than what went before, it doesn't diminish what went before's impact, regardless of the issues suffered by the P-38. It was the aircraft for the job at the time, along with the P-47, and, dare I say it, like the P-39 in the PTO, despite its shortcomings did the job it had to until something better came along.

 

[GrauGeist]

Same can be said for the F4F, it held the line until newer types became available.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That could have been solved by taking a few bean counters out behind the garden shed and whacking them upside the head with a large tree limb.
Saving the cost of a 2nd generator on a 100,000 dollar airplane that used as much electricity as the P-38 was pretty stupid. If the engine with the generator on the single generator versions went down the pilot was racing the depleting battery to get home and in a plane with electric propellers that is not a good thing.

Spot on about the bean counters and the lack of a 2nd generator.

Expanding the picture a bit - this and other issues like the poor heater system are sometimes directed by the government or accepted at the beginning of a contract. I'll continually repeat myself, Lockheed (and probably the AAC) never envisioned to build more than 70 P-38s (INTERCEPTORS) let alone to be used as a bomber escort 25,000' over Germany almost 4 years after the first flight. Once the wheels of a government aircraft production contract is in motion it can be "mating elephants" to get the most obvious and simple items changed (and after 80 years things haven't changed much). Additionally it seems that many P-38 detractors think that Lockheed had the final say on certain equipment that went on the aircraft (like the engines, turbosuperchargers, radios and even landing gear, all "Government Furnished Equipment" or GFE). This can also be said about other aircraft being produced during the same period. I don't know how quickly deficiencies got turned around but there was a laundry list of modifications that Lockheed wanted to make to the aircraft through out it's production life but couldn't without government approval. Again, the manufacturer doesn't always have the final say in production changes despite designing the aircraft!!! On the other side of this I think no one wanted to risk shutting down the production line or delaying deliveries and in the middle of this you had those "bean counters" not helping things.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Same can be said for the F4F, it held the line until newer types became available.

Eggs-actly, as has been said in another thread, just because what's being introduced is better than what went before, it doesn't diminish what went before's impact, regardless of the issues suffered by the P-38. It was the aircraft for the job at the time, along with the P-47, and, dare I say it, like the P-39 in the PTO, despite its shortcomings did the job it had to until something better came along.

You dance with the gal you brought is how we say it down here. The Lockheed wasn't a clear winner, but had significant advantages if the pilot worked 'em, much like the -47. And just alike, it had weaknesses enemy pilots could exploit.

Truth be told, I just like the idea of sitting behind four hot fifties and a twenty, with a crazy grin on my face.

 

[nuuumannn]

You dance with the gal you brought

I like it... Gonna use it...

 

[GrauGeist]

In the 80's, we street racers had a similar saying:
"Run whatcha brung"

 

[33k in the air]

Does anyone have more info on the P-38L, I think it was, which was modified into a superstrafer? The 20mm cannon was replaced by four .50-cal. MGs, bringing the total in the nose to eight. It also carried a Douglas gun pod under each wing.

There is a photo or two of this modification, but I've not come across any details on the project.

 

[Stig1207]

I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe.

There is a another aspect in why some fighter aircraft thrived in other theatres, other than different operating conditions and procedures. The rate of overclaiming was not the same across different theatres and different periods of the war. Higher in the MTO / PTO (and ETO pre '44), than ETO '44 where and when it became much more accurate for the Western Allies.

The record is going to look better for aircraft and units in theatres where victory credits are 2 or more compared to enemy losses vs those in a theatre where vc's are near 1-1.

 

[Ascent]

The trouble is, people think of it as a zero sum game, if you're praising A, then it means you think B is bad.

You see similar in small arms. I like the Bren gun, it suited the British doctrine and was a good reliable weapon. Some would take that to mean I think the MG34/42 is therefore inferior.

No, it just means I think the Bren is a good weapon that suited the British and nothing else.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

In the 80's, we street racers had a similar saying:
"Run whatcha brung"

In the 60s, we ice trialers, autocrossers, and hillclimbers had the same mantra.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe.

I don't think anybody involved in the design and manufacture of the P38 ever truly anticipated the conditions it would encounter in the winter at 30,000 feet over northern Europe for 6-8 hours per sortie.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I was recently told with utter incredulity that someone has been going around claiming that the P-38 captured 90% of all PR photos taken over WW2 europe.

Some digging found this was from Wikipedia, who in turn cite the Lockheed Martin website, who in turn (apparently not having used their own archives at all?)
cite thre books and a LIFE Magazine article for their official P-38 webpage.

The P-38: When Lightning Strikes

A new American fighter, the P-38 Lightning, peeled down from the skies over Iceland on August14, 1942. True to its name, it was akin to a force of nature: fast, unforeseen, and immensely powerful.

www.lockheedmartin.com

I began to have very serious doubts about the scholarly integrity of the webpage within the first few sentences:

"Within six months, as the P-38 showed its versatility in North Africa, a lone hysterical German pilot surrendered to soldiers at an Allied camp near Tunisia, pointing up to the sky and repeating one phrase—"der Gableschwanz Teufl"—over and over."

(this is total nonsense, as has been thoroughly proven to be so on this very forum).

Anyway... this webpage also says:

"P-38 ... as a reconnaissance aircraft, obtained 90 percent of the aerial film captured over Europe"

I found this statistically immensely unlikely, even if the F5 had five cameras fitted.

So I emailed the National Collection of Aerial Photography (incidentally here in Scotland, amazingly), who gave me the following information today:

"That amounts to 22,372 missions of which 18805 are RAF-flown, and 3567 are USAAF-flown. We do not have a frame count available for each sortie, so these figures can only give an indication of the split in effort...This includes missions flown from the UK, Allied-occupied Europe, Italy, Gibraltar and North Africa."

They have 5.5million frames, but state some were shredded, so as he says, these figures are only useful as a relative split. not absolute numbers.

Therefore, even if EVERY single USAAF mission used the P-38, and if ALL of those were the F5 with five cameras, and if ALL the RAF PR aircraft only had ONE camera,
thats still less than the RAF total number of frames taken (naturally this assumes for this very broad point that all aircraft took about the same number of
frames per mission, per camera, which I`m sure isnt true as you`ll have all sorts of different mission parameters).

For Lockheed`s website to be correct, we not only have to skew the data as above, but we then still have to somehow multiply the P-38 images taken
by NINE times.

I like many, strongly suspect that the truth is that the P-38 took 90% of all images over Europe as taken by the USAAF.

I also asked the National Collection of Aerial Photography about the USAAF split in PR aircraft used, who replied:

"At a superficial level, most US-flown sorties in Europe would have employed the F-4/F-5 variant of the P-38"

Lockheed cite the following sources for their webpage, sadly I do not have all of these so cannot say if indeed any of them
actually say 90% of ALL PR missions over Europe or just USAAF ? Can anyone come up with anything further.

Certainly from the response I had from NCAP, the Lockheed claim seems statistically very unlikely.

(These are the sources that Lockheed Martin used to write their webpage, of which I`ve only read Stanaways book)