V-1710 said:
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