Interesting P-38 Comments

[wmaxt]

Do we know if these changes or at least some of them were made on later versions of the plane?

Yes, many changes were made to the systems of the later P-38s
1. Two generators were added with the early J's - the single generator is singled out by Art Heiden as one of the worst problems for the early P-38s because the props were electrically controlled.
2, Turbo controls became automatic in the Js.
3. Cooling flaps became automatic with manual override in the J models - major engine and turbo problems esp at altitude were directly related to cold (~130deg oil at the engine) engine oil, mostly resulting from improper operating techniques.
4, Prop/mixture controls were simplified. a two setting mixture control was implemented in the H and Lockheed had a unified prop/mixture/throttle control designed but was denied permission to install it by the War Production Board.
5, Fuel system was redone to provide crossfeed from any internal tank to either engine.
6, heat ducting to the cockpit was redesigned for the J-25 and L models.
7, Hydraulic controls for the ailerons.
8, Almost forgot one of the most important, Intercoolers were changed to core type with auto temp control on the Js eliminating the too cool/overheated air issues the earlier aircraft had, and eliminating both a cockpit load and increasing hp by ~250hp each engine (the H had the same engines as the J but the intercoolers allowed full output).

As Colonel Rau mentioned the performance of the P-38 was great but the experience with combat and twin engines to low time pilots with inadequate training was a very great issue. As Flyboy pointed out the controls weren't that different from any other fighter of that era.

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The fact that in June, 1944 he's still talking about early P-38 problems shows the bias. Bulb on the gun sight burning out?? Gun Heater (The report is June 44)??? This guy should of gotten a Pulitzer!

 

[Twitch]

When you can't SEE the enemy you are in sad shape. In the ETO P-38 never had the defroster problem satisfactorily solved. Forget all the rest. When you have to carry rags and smear the perspex up to continually clear the frost and fog away at higher altitudes you can't even see enemy planes out gunning for you! Game over!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That I agree 100%

 

[Gnomey]

Yep, if your are seen before you see your enemy your are as good as dead. The classic bounce...

 

[V-1710]

About the intercooler redesign on the J models: They solved one problem, but created another. The increased capacity of the core intercoolers over the leading edge duct type lessened the likelyhood of detonation at high boost settings, but the redesigned oil coolers introduced at the same time were too efficient (for conditions in the ETO), and caused the motor oil to thicken at high altitudes, resulting in the 'Allison Time Bomb'. It took some time to figure out that poor oil flow due to cold temps. was causing engine failures (it sure wasn't happening in the South Pacific). Overall, there's no denying the P-38 was best suited for the Pacific, though I think given time the P-38 could have been just as effective in Europe.

 

[wmaxt]

About the intercooler redesign on the J models: They solved one problem, but created another. The increased capacity of the core intercoolers over the leading edge duct type lessened the likelyhood of detonation at high boost settings, but the redesigned oil coolers introduced at the same time were too efficient (for conditions in the ETO), and caused the motor oil to thicken at high altitudes, resulting in the 'Allison Time Bomb'. It took some time to figure out that poor oil flow due to cold temps. was causing engine failures (it sure wasn't happening in the South Pacific). Overall, there's no denying the P-38 was best suited for the Pacific, though I think given time the P-38 could have been just as effective in Europe.

I don't deny these things happened in the ETO but I've done some comparisons so please think about this:

1. The Aleutions had temps of -150f ON THE GROUND. The were no complaints regarding heat in cockpits, engine/turbo problems etc.
2. A significant number of escort and strategic strike missions were flown above 20,000' in ALL THEATERS, its -30/-40f at that altitudes everywhere, there were no complaints of heat, or bad engines/turbos.
3. the 20th FG had 4 losses due to failed engines.
4. the 8th AF flew between 75,000/100,000 sorties with P-38s. These included bombing, PR, G/A, training and escort missions with 451 aircraft lost. They also flew P-51s for 170,000/190,000 sorties primarily escort missions for a loss of 2,201 P-51s. Five times the P-51s lost as P-38s for ~2 times the sorties. The P-38s flew G/A much more that the P-51s though the P-51s did strikes after escorting the bombers out. The difference is that the P-51 made one pass then went to the next target, the P-38s were on orders to stay until the target was destroyed.
5. In March 45, the 428th F/B squadron flew their P-38J/Ls on 662 sorties for 8 aborts. That same month the 359th FS with P-51Ds flew 404 sorties with 22 aborts. Granted this was after these guys figured the P-38s out.

First its obvious the problems were greatly exaggerated.
Second, if you look at the operating procedures of the units everywhere but in Europe they normally flew with 25"-30" map and 2,000rpm, in the ETO they often flew with 18" and 2.500rpm. The lower map meant:
1. Less apparent compression resulting in higher fuel consumption.
2. Colder oil leading to higher turbo and engine failures.
3. Colder exhaust manifolds meant colder cockpits, granted they weren't very good at their best, lower pressure made it worse.

This is what Doolittle had to say about the P-38 in Europe as related to Warren Bodie in his book on the P-38.

The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but concedes that this can probably be factors unrelated to the aircrafts capability's. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of the type at the time the first groupers were deployed in northern Europe. Both the P-47 and P-51Bs would have faired poorly under the rules then prevailing, but it is necessary to recognize that neither type was developed or mass produced until later.

And

In his personal opinion was that on the balance the P-38 was far ahead of all but one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile, outstripping even its contemporaries of the war years because it served widely and effectively in combat as an air-to-air combat fighter, long range escort fighter, dive/skip bomber, strategic bomber, tactical fighter/bomber, PR and radar equipped night fighter.

Those are Doolittle's thoughts.

My point is that these issues were there but they weren't as great as publicized or completely the fault of the aircraft.

Check this mission out P-38s escorting Mossies to Singapore.
Timur-I-Leng: Mission over Singapore

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

1. The Aleutions had temps of -150f ON THE GROUND. The were no complaints regarding heat in cockpits, engine/turbo problems etc.

-150F? That must be a typo

2. A significant number of escort and strategic strike missions were flown above 20,000' in ALL THEATERS, its -30/-40f at that altitudes everywhere, there were no complaints of heat, or bad engines/turbos.

Escort/bombing missions in the PTO and CBI were always done at far lower altitudes.

Check this mission out P-38s escorting Mossies to Singapore.
Timur-I-Leng: Mission over Singapore

I posted informnation about that several months ago. That has to be the record for range for a fighter mission. Not even the 7th AF P47N's went on mission lenghts like that over Japan.

 

[Jank]

Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944

P-38L (above I indicated that they tested a J model. My mistake) These are not criticisms in relation to other allied aircraft but just absolute criticisms recorded in an attempt to determine the negative attributes of the aircraft that ought to be addressed by aircraft manufacturers for future fighter design.

The report is what it is. Accept it. Reject it. But realize it is the CRITICAL evaluation of fighter and test pilots trying to determine the NEGATIVE aspects of this aircraft.


Cockpit (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Complicated

Controls inaccessible

Crowded

Instrument panel and windshield too far away

Many switches could not be reached with harness locked - including auto override switches

Position of tabs poor

No landing grear position indicator

Visibility not good

Combat Qualities (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Bad visibility to sides and down

Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific

Would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft

Poor coordinatin of control forces and effectiveness, combined with weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat.

Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make serviceability rating low

Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat

 

[davparlr]

Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944

P-38L (above I indicated that they tested a J model. My mistake) These are not criticisms in relation to other allied aircraft but just absolute criticisms recorded in an attempt to determine the negative attributes of the aircraft that ought to be addressed by aircraft manufacturers for future fighter design.

The report is what it is. Accept it. Reject it. But realize it is the CRITICAL evaluation of fighter and test pilots trying to determine the NEGATIVE aspects of this aircraft.


Cockpit (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Complicated

Controls inaccessible

Crowded

Instrument panel and windshield too far away

Many switches could not be reached with harness locked - including auto override switches

Position of tabs poor

No landing grear position indicator

Visibility not good

Combat Qualities (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Bad visibility to sides and down

Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific

Would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft

Poor coordinatin of control forces and effectiveness, combined with weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat.

Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make serviceability rating low

Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat

Something you must remember about this report. The non-operating sevice and contractors flew each aircraft. That means Navy pilots and contractor pilots flew the P-38. Now if there is one thing that Navy pilots hated more than the Japs (using a WWII term here) was Army pilots followed closely by Army planes. And the P-38 was their direct competition, therefore, was probably their most hated Army plane. I doubt if they would have said positive things about the F8F, if it was an Army plane! Most Army plane reviews were mostly negative except for the P-51D, they seem to have some trouble criticizing it, but then (1944) it was not competing with the Navy in the Pacific.

 

[Jank]

Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.

To be fair though, the USN was over represented.

More on the impression the P-38L left on the fighter and test pilots in the conference.

Best all-around cockpit

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Worst cockpit

Most votes - P-38

Nicest arrangement of engine controls

Most votes - P-51
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most convenient gear and flap controls

Most votes - F8F
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most comfortable cockpit

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around visibility

Most votes - P-51
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around armor

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best for overload takeoff from small area

Most votes - F6F
P-38 tied for 5th place

Nicest harmonization of control forces

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 received no votes

Best ailerons at 350mph

Most votes - P-51
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best ailerons at 100mph

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 9th place

Best elevator

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place

Which powerplant operation inspires the most confidence

Most votes - Pratt Whitney R-2800
Allison voted last place

 

[davparlr]

Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.

All of this is true but, page 248 of the report, the Appendix right before the data sheets, state in the third paragraph: "The total number of cards turned in by each services is listed at the beginning of the summary for each aircraft. In general, the British representatives in pilot comments is small; furthermore few pilots flew airplanes of their own service. The comments are therefore about half from contractors' pilots, fifth or so from British pilots, and the remainder from the service not sponsoring the aircraft in question."

The comments on the P-38L were listed as follows:
Army-1
Navy-9
British-5
Contractors-13

And, if you figure that probably most (maybe all, since the aircraft contractor pilots would already be familar with there own aircraft) of the contractors were competition, then, by far, the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L. I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in.

 

[Jank]

davparlr said, " I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in."

I would agree with that and just as the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L as a result of the fact that few pilots flew airplanes of their own service, neither were they prone to be favorable to any of the aircraft.

The 21 areas voted on above had a general 9:15 vote ratio of USAAF to USN (The USN had 2/3 more) and yet the P-47 still managed to ilk out top votes for most comfortable cockpit, best all-around armor, best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet and best strafer.

And the comments breakdown of the P-47 was far more lopsided between USAAF and USN than with the P-38 (1:14 as opposed to 1:9). It was as follows:

Army-1
Navy-14
British-4
Contractors-10

Of interest also on page 248 is the following paragraph:

"Separate test break-downs for each service and the contractors showed no significant differences in the results; the comments have therefore not been distinguished as to the auspices of the pilot making them."

 

[wmaxt]

Another point is that there were no pilots/ground crew familiar with the P-38. Most Fighter pilots of that time had an automatic prejudice against twin engined fighters. Check out this story about a pilot, his first impression and his eventual attitude about the P-38. P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey The first reaction with the P-38 was normally a low one because "Everyone knows a twin can't compete with a single engined fighter. Heres another story about P-38Ms against the aircraft in the '45/'46 era combair015.htm
moreover remember its worst kill ratio was 4:1 while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

-150F? That must be a typo



Escort/bombing missions in the PTO and CBI were always done at far lower altitudes.




I posted informnation about that several months ago. That has to be the record for range for a fighter mission. Not even the 7th AF P47N's went on mission lenghts like that over Japan.

Yes the -150 should be -50f

Not everywhere, in the CBI probably not, the Pacific theaters were frequently at high altitudes - not all, tactical missions were always at low altitudes - but a fairly high proportion of them were strategic and at high altitudes. For instance even just flying over New Guinea you were above 20,000ft just to miss the mountains! Long range missions were almost always above 15,000ft and frequently above 20,000ft for both fuel efficiency and suprise. Further strategic missions in the MTO were at or above 20,000ft. In both the Pacific and Med a favorite tactic (tactical) was bombers at 12,000ft to 15,000ft, P-40s about 5,000ft above that and P-38s above that often to about 25,000ft. Also several Japanese mention the P-38s almost always came from above, and a 15,000ft cruise altitude for Japanese aircraft was fairly normal, that places the P-38s at least 5,000ft above or 20,000ft. Heres a site by someone who has researched the P-38 and interviewed many of its pilots
The P38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620) theres a lot of info here on the Lightning.

I believe your right about it being the longest mission and he claims they were using 165gal drop tanks.

My main points, there are two, are first: the conditions in Europe were encountered elsewhere but few of the problems were. Second: incorrect operations and usage, as commented on by Doolittle, had a very great impact on the outcome/issues the P-38 had.

Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines! The P-38 esp the early ones weren't perfect but it always had an edge over its contemporaries if you learned to fly it. Even German commanders have made issues about the P-38s superiority, check out Stienhoffs remarks to Galland at this site:
Planes and Pilots of WWII

wmaxt

 

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!"

Certainly impressive. Reminds me of another high kill ratio in the Pacific. In one 18 day period in May of 1945, the 318th, often outnumbered 15 to 1, managed to rack up 102 air to air kills for a loss of only 3 of their P-47N's. (That's a ratio of 34:1)

Newspapers from coast to coast have acclaimed our Group as the

For more information on the Mighty 318th and it's exploits against the Japanese see:

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

 

[davparlr]

All of the comments above are good. My thoughts about the P-38 are as follows:
-In capable hands the P-38 was a formidable fighter with very good range with external fuel.
-Pilots proficient in the P-38 was confident in its abilty against contemporary fighters.
-Wartime perfomance is self explainatory
-It did have some unique drawbacks
-It seem to be complex with an increase pilot workload requiring more time to be capable
-In 1944-45, it was slow relative to contempory fighters. 414 mph was 10-20 mph slower. It could probably dive pretty good somewhat offsetting speed disadvantage.
-Mission reliability would be less than a single engine plane, e.g., there would be twice the probability of engine failure for any given time. However, if the engine failure was catastropic, the P-38 had a much better chance of returning so safety-of-flight was better. A classical trade-off between mission reliability and safety-of-flight reliability.
-Maintance hour per flight hour would be greater, reducing available aircraft, which may have been an issue early in the war, e.g. Aleutian campaign, South Pacific, etc.
-The P-38 was more expensive and I am sure had a higher operating cost, althought both of these were not significant in WWII.

Sill very capable, flexible and deadly. A great aircraft with a great record.

 

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!"

Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.

Here's a painting of Doolitle's flight over the beaches of Normandy. Robert Taylor, the artist, wrote the following account:

"Sitting around waiting for intelligence reports was not Jimmy Doolittle's style. He was going to see for himself what was happening! With Pat Partridge as wingman, they took off flying P-38 Lightnings – chosen for their distinctive profile in the hopes they would deter friendly fire – and climbed above the overcast."

On a similar note, when Japan surrendered, they were initially going to use P-47N's from the 318th to escort the surrender delegation which was flying in on two Betty's. It was decided that they would play it safe and use P-38's from the 8th and 49th groups instead as it would be highly unlikely to mistake the incoming formation as a Japanese attack.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

"Col. McAfee had to explain to his men why the 318th would not be escorting the surrender delegation to Ie Shima as originally planned. The bottom line was aircraft identification. Two "Betty" bombers escorted by a bunch of P-47s could easily be misidentified as an enemy formation. Indeed, Marine F4U Corsairs had tried to attack 318th Thunderbolts at least once (they outran them rather than engage). No one wanted a SNAFU and there was no Japanese plane that looked anything like a P-38 Lightning. So P-38s would escort the surrender delegation. Period."

 

[wmaxt]

wmaxt said, "Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!"

Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.

Here's a painting of Doolitle's flight over the beaches of Normandy. Robert Taylor, the artist, wrote the following account:

"Sitting around waiting for intelligence reports was not Jimmy Doolittle's style. He was going to see for himself what was happening! With Pat Partridge as wingman, they took off flying P-38 Lightnings – chosen for their distinctive profile in the hopes they would deter friendly fire – and climbed above the overcast."

On a similar note, when Japan surrendered, they were initially going to use P-47N's from the 318th to escort the surrender delegation which was flying in on two Betty's. It was decided that they would play it safe and use P-38's from the 8th and 49th groups instead as it would be highly unlikely to mistake the incoming formation as a Japanese attack.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

"Col. McAfee had to explain to his men why the 318th would not be escorting the surrender delegation to Ie Shima as originally planned. The bottom line was aircraft identification. Two "Betty" bombers escorted by a bunch of P-47s could easily be misidentified as an enemy formation. Indeed, Marine F4U Corsairs had tried to attack 318th Thunderbolts at least once (they outran them rather than engage). No one wanted a SNAFU and there was no Japanese plane that looked anything like a P-38 Lightning. So P-38s would escort the surrender delegation. Period."

With respect to D-Day and the surrender escort, that is undoubtedly true as the P-38s area because as you put it "Easy Identification". I don't have the back up but he flew P-38s on other occasions to.

Dave, The L model could go faster than 414mph, there are several reports including a AAF test, that its top speed at ~25,000ft was as high as 443mph. I only have a Lockheed graph at this time so I can't nail it down as fact (I require at least two different and reliable sources before I'll accept this kind of stuff as fact). Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Absolute top speed is only an issue in level flight in a relatively straight line ie. persuing/running. Even using 414mph the only enemy fighter that exceeded that was the Bf-109K with special fuel. The P-51 was only faster (using 414mph) between 20,000ft and 27,000ft at all other altitudes the P-38 was as fast or faster.
2. After two turns speed was running in the 250mph to 325mph range anyway with energy retention and acceleration being much more important, the P-38 excelled at both. These speeds also allowed the P-38 to use its maneuvering flaps letting it turn with about anything out there.
3. In a bounce/escape dive the level top speed doesn't enter into the equation.
4. Finally the maximum top speed is only valid at one altitude/condition so in reality it was only a bench mark and even that was dependant on aircraft condition.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Now that is just pure nonsense wmaxt ! Nearly every German fighter in service by 44 could easily do over 414 mph - the K-4 did 450 + mph for christs sake ! Even the A-8, which was considered rather slow by German fighter pilots, could go 14 mph faster than that !

And about using maneuver flaps against German fighters, well if you had a wish of getting shot down then thats what you would've done - dropping flaps when fighting the FW-190 would get you killed VERY quickly ! And doing it against a Bf-109 would bring you into trouble equally fast.