Interesting P-38 Comments

[davparlr]

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

All you have said is good. I know that top speed in only a certain part of the equation for fighting. The info you have provided is probably more important. Unfortunately we often have top speed and little else in order to do an analysis (especially my data).

I noted in my research that the P-38 was faster than most of the enemy planes until late in the war.

You have certainly convinced me that the P-38 was a formidable fighting machine in the right hands. And the fact that the pilots had confidence in it also makes a good point. Pilots do not have confidence in aircraft that doesn't give them a fighting chance.

The comment in the fighter study about it not being a "modern" fighter is strange and smells of a bias input.

 

[syscom3]

The P38 was a 1938 design.

And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.

Plus it wasnt designed for mass production, thus it had a complicated design and structure.

So yes it wasnt a modern type of fighter of what was expected in 1944/1945.

 

[wmaxt]

The P38 was a 1938 design.

And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.

Plus it wasnt designed for mass production, thus it had a complicated design and structure.

So yes it wasnt a modern type of fighter of what was expected in 1944/1945.

Yes it was a 1938 design and even late in the war it was considered advanced esp with items like hydraulic ailerons and dive slats.

It was designed as a fighter, the term interceptor was a label Kelesly used to let the contract for the design competition because the AAF had put a hold on new "Persuit" planes. However Lockheed did select the wing for climb making it a prime interceptor if one wished to use it that was.

Your right it wasn't particularly good for production, then again one (1) factory built 9,926 P-38s in 4 years. The last 8 months the P-80 was also built in the same factory. Had the P-38 been built in a second factory in '43 starting with the J model there would have been ~14,000/16,000 P-38s out there. The low number was due to the WPB refusal to set up a second factory. I belive of the Major US fighters the P-38 was the only one to go so long without a second factory. Commanders were begging for them in the MTO and the Pacific, Doolittle faced with high demand and fewer aircraft settled on the Mustang - not because it was better but because he could get more of them creating more consistency in inventories, planning and training.

? The L model out performed the P-51D in every category except top speed between 22,000ft and 27,000ft and there is evidence that even that may not be true. Against an P-51H model it came up short on top speed but was still equal or exceeded it in other areas. They set up a second factory in 1945, does that suggest it was considered less capable when compared to the P-51H and P-47N both in production at that time?

Doolittle himself felt "The Lightning was far ahead of all but one (1) or two (2) of the most outstanding fighters of WWII".

And to wrap it up, in July 1944 with the introduction of the Me-262 ALL piston aircraft were just marking time the P-51H was obsolete before it went into production.

Soren, I mentioned the Bf-109K models earlier. they couldn't hit 452 without the C3 fuel and the evidence suggests that that fuel was only available intermittently and in small quantities. The Fw-190D and Ta-152s are a possible but the only tests I've seen show 414mph for the Fw-190D9 and I will need two corroborating test reports from separate sources before I accept a different figure. I'm not going to just accept an internet source theres too much crap out there, in regards to internet P-38 specs, even P-38 sites use METO power performance figures and those are often mixed or just plain wrong, and are inaccurate when referring to best performance. I have to assume the same level of inaccuracy (or worse due to the lack of surviving information) in regards to Luftwaffe aircraft.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.

Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.

 

[wmaxt]

The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.

Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.

I agree totally.

Add to that it would have given Lockheed the breathing room to include the unified power control and the K model that made the L look like it was stuck in the mud, with initial climb in the 5,000ft/mn and top speed ~450mph range.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Soren, I mentioned the Bf-109K models earlier. they couldn't hit 452 without the C3 fuel and the evidence suggests that that fuel was only available intermittently and in small quantities.The Fw-190D and Ta-152s are a possible but the only tests I've seen show 414mph for the Fw-190D9 and I will need two corroborating test reports from separate sources before I accept a different figure.

wmaxt, not to be harsh but, that is bullsh*t and you know it ! Even on B-4 fuel the K-4, G-6/AS, G-10 and G-14 easily achieved speeds greater than 414 mph, the G-10 achieving 688 km/h (430 mph) on B-4 fuel.

The slowest listed speed for the Fw-190 D-9 is 685 km/h (428 mph) and was achieved at Start u. Notleistung - 1,750PS@3,250RPM, with the MW-50 system installed speeds of over 704 km/h (440 mph) could be reached easily. And with the D-12 prop speed increased by another 10 mph, and with GM-1 speeds in excess of 760 km/h (475 mph) were reached.

These are 1945 period leistung charts:
Fw-190 D-9 speeds with ETC-504
Fw-190 Dora Ta 152 speeds on B-4 fuel without ETC racks

Here's a list of German fighters which could easily do over 414 mph by 1944:

Bf-109 G-6/AS /-10/-14/-14/AS
Bf-109 K-4
Fw-190 A-5/-6/-7/-8/-9
Fw-190 D-9/-11/-12/-13
Ta 152 H-0/-1

As you can see wmaxt, pretty much each and every LW fighter in service by 44 could do over 414 mph, and most significantly so !

 

[wmaxt]

wmaxt, not to be harsh but, that is bullsh*t and you know it ! Even on B-4 fuel the K-4, G-6/AS, G-10 and G-14 easily achieved speeds greater than 414 mph, the G-10 achieving 688 km/h (430 mph) on B-4 fuel.

The slowest listed speed for the Fw-190 D-9 is 685 km/h (428 mph) and was achieved at Start u. Notleistung - 1,750PS@3,250RPM, with the MW-50 system installed speeds of over 704 km/h (440 mph) could be reached easily. And with the D-12 prop speed increased by another 10 mph, and with GM-1 speeds in excess of 760 km/h (475 mph) were reached.

These are 1945 period leistung charts:
Fw-190 D-9 speeds with ETC-504
Fw-190 Dora Ta 152 speeds on B-4 fuel without ETC racks


Here's a list of German fighters which could easily do over 414 mph by 1944:

Bf-109 G-6/AS /-10/-14/-14/AS
Bf-109 K-4
Fw-190 A-5/-6/-7/-8/-9
Fw-190 D-9/-11/-12/-13
Ta 152 H-0/-1

As you can see wmaxt, pretty much each and every LW fighter in service by 44 could do over 414 mph, and most significantly so !

Soren, You might be right at least partially but I can't find those numbers anywhere else for instance the Finnish flight manual gives the top speed of the Bf-109G6 at 640kph (398mph) @ 6,300 meters. Your graphs would help a lot in I could read them but the only clear parts are the highlites and I have no way to interpret them, no offense intended. Just as neither you nor I will accept the one test graph I have of the P-38L @ 442mph as absolute fact, I need more to accept these numbers. Again, I don't feel you've tampered with the data or intentionally skewed it, I just need a bit more clear data before I accept it as absolute fact.

BTW: The P-38s racks/pylons were structural components of the aircraft and not removable in normal terms. Even Yippee, the show plane, kept its racks.

Maybe Eric can help us here, he seem to have the most data on the capabilities of the Luftwaffe.

I'm still open to the possibility, just not convinced yet.

wmaxt

 

[Twitch]

Another tid-bit for the P-38 files- I talked to P-38 pilot yesterday with a different slant on the plane due to the theater he was in- The Aleutians. Of course he loved the Lightning. But because of the problems with the P-38 at altitude they stayed at low and medium altitudes, never venturing above 15,000 feet even escorting B-17s.

 

[Soren]

Soren, You might be right at least partially but I can't find those numbers anywhere else for instance the Finnish flight manual gives the top speed of the Bf-109G6 at 640kph (398mph) @ 6,300 meters.

wmaxt, I'm talking about the 1944 model G-6/AS, not the early model G-6.

Your graphs would help a lot in I could read them but the only clear parts are the highlites and I have no way to interpret them, no offense intended.

Which highlights ? Tell me and I'll happily translate them for you.

Just as neither you nor I will accept the one test graph I have of the P-38L @ 442mph as absolute fact, I need more to accept these numbers.

wmaxt, I'm providing originals, you're providing what are supposedly digital copies ! That, combined with the fact that your P-38 figures can't be explained logically or aerodynamically, is why its hard for me to accept them as fact.

Again, I don't feel you've tampered with the data or intentionally skewed it, I just need a bit more clear data before I accept it as absolute fact.

And I don't think you've tampered with any data either wmaxt, but you're believing the impossible.

Now about your need for more "clear" data, well I really do not understand that, cause I've been providing very clear, solid and substantial amounts of data for a very long time now, so exactly what more do you need ?? - I think it is more your reluctance to accept this original and solid data, rather than it not being "clear" enough, thats the problem here.

BTW: The P-38s racks/pylons were structural components of the aircraft and not removable in normal terms. Even Yippee, the show plane, kept its racks.

Not so for the FW-190 however.

 

[davparlr]

My source, which has proved reliable, shows the Fw 190A-5 as 656 km/hr and the A-6 as 651 km/hr.

 

[Soren]

Thats running at 1.42ata davparlr, by mid 1943 the FW-190 was running at 1.65ata.

 

[davparlr]

Thats running at 1.42ata davparlr, by mid 1943 the FW-190 was running at 1.65ata.

I don't have that source just as I don't have the P-38L doing 440+mph, so I cannot contradict either one. You are the experts for each and I am sure you have a lot more info than I do on those specific aircraft.

 

[Twitch]

Funny Dave I don't either from any book or publication from any era. Just because one guy in tests ran up illegally high maniford pressure and made ONE run at a higher than typical speed doesn't mean that is normal for the model. Prototypes consistantly show some higher performance until they are equipped for typical flight ops. Consistancy is what matters. We must also assume that everyone that researched specs and stats since 1945 for publication has been in error as well.

 

[Soren]

From the A5-A6 POH - Performance at 1.42ata:

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A question here.....

We've discussed where the RAF tested the -190 with a "bad" engine. I could not find anywhere specifics on this. How was it being determined that this engine as not performing. In the air? During ground run-up? On any recip the manufacturer is going to set parameters for checking magnetos, manifold pressure and RPM on the ground. If it is determined that these parameters aren't being met during your ground run, you don't fly. I'd like to know the specifics behind this "bad running engine."

 

[syscom3]

Well it looks like the last models of the -190 and -109 were more than a match for the P38.

But it didnt matter because the -38 was at the end of its design life.

The P38 was an obscolesent design by 1945,and was really only usefull in the PTO due to the extreme range it could fly.

 

[Soren]

A question here.....

We've discussed where the RAF tested the -190 with a "bad" engine. I could not find anywhere specifics on this. How was it being determined that this engine as not performing. In the air? During ground run-up? On any recip the manufacturer is going to set parameters for checking magnetos, manifold pressure and RPM on the ground. If it is determined that these parameters aren't being met during your ground run, you don't fly. I'd like to know the specifics behind this "bad running engine."

The sparkplugs and the fuel used caused the rough running of the engine. Later the British made it run perfectly fine by changing its sparkplugs with some siemens type plugs taken from a crashed Do-217 and using different type fuel, unfortunately by this time no more tests were to be carried out with the a/c.

As Erich Brown later put it:
"It purred smoothly as it ran"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The sparkplugs and the fuel used caused the rough running of the engine. Later the British made it run perfectly fine by changing its sparkplugs with some siemens type plugs taken from a crashed Do-217 and using different type fuel, unfortunately by this time no more tests were to be carried out with the a/c.

As Erich Brown later put it:
"It purred smoothly as it ran"

Rough running? Was it missing? Was it detonating? During the ground run if it made RPM, the required manifold pressure and mag drop, that should of been that. If it ran rough on the ground, any flight tests would of been a waste of time. If the original plugs were fouling becuase of fuel they could of been cleaned and re-installed, at that point an indication of the true engine performance could of been made before they starting fouling again (which probably would of been within a few minutes of operation). I have a feeling these tests were a 'rush to judgement' if indeed there was a problem with the engine.

Thanks for the info Soren - I'm searching for the flight test report on this, i know it was posted here...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I found a copy of the report - interesting...

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system. "Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber."

The paragraph prior reads "There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available."

And in the conclusions...

"The rough running of the engine is much disliked by all pilots and must be a great disadvantage, as lack of confidence in an engine makes flying over bad country or water most unpleasant."

I don't know if Brown had anything to do with the initial report but a seasoned test pilot would of realized that the "rough" engine was probably caused by fouling and the common method to clear this is to lean. Now i know the 190 had a "one lever system" which was revolutionary for its time and might of made leaning of the engine impossible.

Tigar

 

[Soren]

Actually I'm not even sure Brown ever flew Faber's A-3, but he flew the A-4 which he has described as running beautifully - ofcourse by this time (mid 43) the sparkplugs were ok and so was the fuel used.

Eric Brown:
" The BMW 801 was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external supply or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally and almost invariably fired during the propeller's first revolution; it purred smoothly as it ran. "