How good (or bad) was the P-38, really? (1 Viewer)

[MIflyer]

I believe you are wrong.

The P-38's up through the H model used the leading edge intercoolers. These were not only a challenge to manufacture but by the H model provided inadequate cooling due to the lack of heat transfer fins as well as paint coatings. The chin type intercoolers added with the J models provided much better cooling and allowed the H type engines in the J to develop more HP. But there was no control over the cooling and on long high altitude missions, especially in cold climates, led to overcooling of the charge and introduction of liquid fuel into the engines. At the 9th PRS in India they blocked off some of the intercooler ram air exhaust to fix that problem and eventually on at least some airplanes manual cowl flaps were installed. A Stanley Hooker style liquid cooled intercooler would have fixed that but no one seemed to consider that.

 

[AZRailwhale]

And the RAF provided Spitfires to escort when possible, of course depending on the target/range.

Spits couldn't escort bombers much beyond the channel ports.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Spits couldn't escort bombers much beyond the channel ports.

You mean like Plymouth and Dover?

 

[AZRailwhale]

You mean like Plymouth and Dover?

No, FRENCH ports.

 

[GrauGeist]

Spits couldn't escort bombers much beyond the channel ports.

In 1943, the coast of continental Europe was a target rich environment for the 9th AF bombers.

So...your point being?

 

[tomo pauk]

When the P-38s were fighting over Northern Europe, they were green units fighting the cream of the Luftwaffe over its own airfields in its own radar coverage. The Luftwaffe could pick and choose where and when to fight, and the Lightnings still almost got a one-to-one kill ratio. When looked at in that light the P-38s performance doesn't look so bad. If Doolittle had held on until the late Js and Ls were deployed the Lightning's record would look a wgh9le lot better.

P-47s deployed against Luftwaffe were also not with some great combat experience, but were still faring much better.
Air war will not wait for late Js and Ls to emerge, even if Doolittle might want to.

The P-38 was originally designed as a limited production fast climbing interceptor.

Originally designed for how many copies to be produced?

 

[drgondog]

When the P-38s were fighting over Northern Europe, they were green units fighting the cream of the Luftwaffe over its own airfields in its own radar coverage. The Luftwaffe could pick and choose where and when to fight, and the Lightnings still almost got a one-to-one kill ratio. When looked at in that light the P-38s performance doesn't look so bad. If Doolittle had held on until the late Js and Ls were deployed the Lightning's record would look a wgh9le lot better.

The Pioneer Mustang 354FG trained in P-39s, deployed w/o aircraft, and immediately assigned to a fighter (P-51B) with no combat record. Within three months it scored more VCs than both P-38J (20th and 55th) FGs combined. At end of Big Week it was about 8:1 in the same envoronmnt you describe for the Lightning groups.

The deployment of the mid-block J-15 occurred in February in time for the March Berlin missions, solvig cockpit heating, intercoolerand oil cooler primary issues of over cooling - but the primary flaws of the P-38 as as escort still existed. 1.) It was very easy to spot from a distance, permitting LW to decide to fight or retreat baed on tactical advantage, 2.) the dive compressibility 'thangy' (not mitigated until J-25 with div flaps which weren't operational even in 479th FG in late September) limited the P-38 attack/evade envelope vs 109 and 190s. Only the 9th AF entered combat with J-25s in September/October and many 8th AF Js went to MTO for the 1st, 14th and 82nd in May 1944. By that time the 31st, 52nd and 325th were converted to P-51B and picking up the LR trips to Bucharest and Ploesti and Vienna/Leipzig strikes for 15th AF.

While mentioning the 479th, they had an excellent air to air record flying J-15s in August/September 1944 after which they converted to P-51B/D and had an even better record. One to one, even 2:1 was far below P-47 and P-51 achievements in ETO

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Allied Mediterranean Air Forces put out weekly/10 day strength reports by models, the ones I have, 15th Air Force P-38 units,

27-Feb-44, 7 F, 85 G, 38 H, 1st FG has the H models
1-Apr-44, 8 F, 85 G, 2 5H, 61 J, 1st has the H, 14th and 82nd the J
29-Apr-44, 7 F, 73 G, 24 H, 159 J
3-Jun-44, 2 F, 44 G, 4 H, 211 J
24-Jun-44, 2 F, 42 G, 3 H, 222 J
1-Jul-44, 2 F, 41 G, 4 H, 228 J
27-Jul-44, 36 G, 3 H, 191 J
2-Sep-44, 119 J, 5 L
30-Sep-44, 167 J, 73 L

P-51,
31st FG to 15th Air Force 1 April 1944, first MTO Merlin P-51 operation 16 April.
52nd FG, to 15th Air Force 1 May 1944, first operation 10 May.
325th FG, goes from 77 P-47D on strength 29 April 1944 to 3 P-47D, 46 P-51B, 38 P-51C on 3 June, Last P-47 operation 24 May, 1st P-51 operation 27 May.
332nd FG reported as converting to P-47 starting as early as April 1944 but only P-47D on strength 24 June, last P-47 operation 30 June, on 1 July had 72 P-47D, 37 P-51B and 30 P-51C, first P-51 operation on 4 July 1944.

On 29 April 1944 the 15th Air Force P-51 units held 72 P-51B, on 3 June it was 171 B and 47 C, on 22 June it was 166 B, 66 C and 53 D

 

[Dimlee]

1.) It was very easy to spot from a distance, permitting LW to decide to fight or retreat baed on tactical advantage,

Old discussion, I know. Just a picture.

 

[pbehn]

Old discussion, I know. Just a picture.
View attachment 719111

How your brain sees something through your eyes is complicated. The size of a P-38 as far as a human looking at it goes is as a solid object bounded by the props and twin booms. In the same way a squadron of anything in tight formation is more visible than any individual aircraft from that formation. There is a distance between objects beyond which your eyes/ brain stop seeing the group and just see individual planes.

 

[GrauGeist]

It's been a (very) long time since I read about the incident, but I recall an occasion where a P-38 was bounced by friendlies because they thought it looked like an Fw189.

 

[pbehn]

It's been a (very) long time since I read about the incident, but I recall an occasion where a P-38 was bounced by friendlies because they thought it looked like an Fw189.

I just read recently that Fw 187s were "seen" shadowing the bomber box on the Scweinfurt raid along with Ju 87s.

 

[special ed]

One book told of a 38 driver in the Pacific who couldn't shake a Japanese fighter and flew near a destroyer, stood the 38 on it's wing, and the USN AA drove the bad guy away.

 

[Dimlee]

It's been a (very) long time since I read about the incident, but I recall an occasion where a P-38 was bounced by friendlies because they thought it looked like an Fw189.

And someone in Finland (Juutilainen?) claimed one P-38.

 

[Dimlee]

How your brain sees something through your eyes is complicated. The size of a P-38 as far as a human looking at it goes is as a solid object bounded by the props and twin booms. In the same way a squadron of anything in tight formation is more visible than any individual aircraft from that formation. There is a distance between objects beyond which your eyes/ brain stop seeing the group and just see individual planes.

It is complicated, indeed. I know from my maritime experience. Larger vessel is not always more visible, the shape plays a big role. For example, a 200 m long laden tanker can be less visible than a 150 m cruise ship or a 120 m frigate. The tanker if observed from a side has a "dumbbell shape" (can't find a better word) and can be recognised by a brain as two or even three small objects. While the other two, despite being shorter, are seen as a box or an oval and immediately attract attention. Visual observation, of course, not the radar.
In that picture, I find the second view the most interesting. I assume that P-47 is the most visible. I'm not sure about P-38 vs P-51. The former is just a bit longer but very slim - between the engines and the vertical stab. It reminds me of that "dumbbell shape" effect.

 

[pbehn]

It is complicated, indeed. I know from my maritime experience. Larger vessel is not always more visible, the shape plays a big role. For example, a 200 m long laden tanker can be less visible than a 150 m cruise ship or a 120 m frigate. The tanker if observed from a side has a "dumbbell shape" (can't find a better word) and can be recognised by a brain as two or even three small objects. While the other two, despite being shorter, are seen as a box or an oval and immediately attract attention. Visual observation, of course, not the radar.
In that picture, I find the second view the most interesting. I assume that P-47 is the most visible. I'm not sure about P-38 vs P-51. The former is just a bit longer but very slim - between the engines and the vertical stab. It reminds me of that "dumbbell shape" effect.

That is true, but to see a P-47 or any other plane from that angle you have to fly alongside it. With any angle of bank ir viewed from non engineering angles the P-38 then has two tails and three fuselage sections. It suddenly becomes much bigger. It is the outline that your eyes see. A side elevation of a P-47 presents the fuselage at its biggest, a plan view presents the wings and fuselage at their biggest, but your eyes see the outline or silhouette, not the spaces in between.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

With any angle of bank ir viewed from non engineering angles the P-38 then has two tails and three fuselage sections. It suddenly becomes much bigger. It is the outline that your eyes see.

The human brain also has a proclivity to fill in spaces where it doesn't have much data or is focused elsewhere. It's why, for instance, while we actually have a blind spot where the optic nerve meets the retina, we don't actually see that as negative space. Our brain simply copy-pastes nearby color and texture onto it, essentially. So the fact that the P-38's booms are thin doesn't really make much odds.

 

[MIflyer]

Originally designed for how many copies to be produced?

According to Warren Bodie, who wrote the definitive book on the P-38, only about 50 of them were gping to be built. It was designed to be an interceptor for prewar isolationist America. 50 airplanes- would allow them to be flown to the coastal area where the threat was expected to be, and threats occurring at the same time at all coasts was considered to be impossible.

The P-38E was hand built, with fit and a finish much better than the subsequent production types. Care was taken to butt joint seams and even make screws flush. It took Lockheed a while to get it into full rate wartime production and even longer to set up a second factory.

Ward Duncan, maintenance chief of the 9th PRS, one day hauled out his scrap books and proceeded to give us a tutorial on P-38 mishaps he had dealt with. The P-38 was a complex airplane and it was easy for the pilots to make mistakes. Ward even had to squeeze into the cockpit (not behind it) on some occasions in order for pilots to demonstrate some problem they wee dealing with. When Jimmy Stewart flew a P-38 after returning from the ETO, he was a highly experienced pilot, having instructed in B-17's before flying them in combat, but he still forgot how to put the landing gear down and thus scared the crap out of Tony Levier when he came back to the field much later than had been planned.

 

[tomo pauk]

According to Warren Bodie, who wrote the definitive book on the P-38, only about 50 of them were gping to be built.

Thank you for the feedback.
Is it known on what date Lockheed had the contract for ~50 P-38s?

 

[drgondog]

Thank you for the feedback.
Is it known on what date Lockheed had the contract for ~50 P-38s?

Dean's timeline points to June 39 for P-38 Specification, with August 39 for 66 ship order (combined 322 and P-38)