MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[P-39 Expert]

Two things about the Lightning:

They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang.

They were complicated. A true state of the art airplane for it's time with twin turbochargers but it didn't get into combat until late '42 because of the complexity of the turbo. Complicated to maintain, and really complicated to fly. Too much for a 200HR army pilot. It was said that it took a pilot twice as long to become proficient in a P-38.

And the initial combat models, the F and G were no better performance wise than their Luftwaffe opponents and had many disadvantages including dive restrictions and less maneuverability. If you agree that the Luftwaffe was beaten by mid '44 then the best models (L) hadn't even started production. Granted an L with an experienced pilot might be the best combo, it was just too late. Just my opinion.

 

[wuzak]

From another thread:

Then again....

From Francis Dean, America's Hundred Thousand:

The P-38 was a large and heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam-bang" maneuvers, and had a particularly slow initial response to roll due to a a high lateral inertia characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said "It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard, and just have the P-38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing". Many combat losses, particularly in North Africa, were attributed to this creaky initial rate of roll. Another pilot noted "The first ten degrees of bank came very slow". Power boosted ailerons, introduced the same time as dive recovery flaps, gave the P-38 pilot a lot more "muscle" to improve roll characteristics at high speeds, but did nothing to improve them at low and moderate speeds where maximum roll performance was dependent only on full aileron deflection instead of pilot effort.

What I understand from that is that at low to moderate speeds the pilot could achieve full deflection of the ailerons without too much effort, meaning that the rate of roll was all down to the great god of aerodynamics and Newton's laws.

Getting the ailerons deflected in half the time or with less physical effort mattered little to the roll rate at low speeds.

At high speeds the ailerons cannot be fully deflected, the roll performance depending on how far they can be, which is dependent on the force applied to them through the stick. With no assistance it wasn't a whole lot, but with assistance it was a great improvement.

Doesn't sound like it would be out-manoeuvering aircraft such as a Fw 190.

 

[eagledad]

Wuzak, Hairog, et al

Whether the P-38 is the best USAAF fighter of WWII will always be debated. Certainly the criticisms leveled against the aircraft were warranted, the cold cockpits, requiring twice the training hours to master compared to a single engine fighter, the dive limits, slow initial roll, and distinctive silhouette. Zemke and Rau did not appear to be great fans of the aircraft, and even Olds, who made ace in the P-38 in northern Europe, liked the P-51 a little bit more.

However, outside northern Europe, there were probably more supporters than detractors. OB Taylor a 5 victory ace in the MTO, appreciated the P-38.

"Kenny" Giroux was a 10 victory ace (all in the P-38) who flew the P-39, P-47 and P-38 in combat with the 8th Fighter Group 5th Air Force . He summed up his time in the P-38 with the following:
"In my opinion, it (the P-38) was the greatest fighter airplane of its time. Yes, I've flown the P-51."Giroux statement taken from Pacific Sweep by William N Hess, page 235.

As for rolling with a FW-190A, the attached graph confirms about the low speed rates of roll between the P-38 and the FW.

Just another view.

Eagledad

 

[redcoat]

Two things about the Lightning:

They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang.

They were complicated. A true state of the art airplane for it's time with twin turbochargers but it didn't get into combat until late '42 because of the complexity of the turbo. Complicated to maintain, and really complicated to fly. Too much for a 200HR army pilot. It was said that it took a pilot twice as long to become proficient in a P-38.

And the initial combat models, the F and G were no better performance wise than their Luftwaffe opponents and had many disadvantages including dive restrictions and less maneuverability. If you agree that the Luftwaffe was beaten by mid '44 then the best models (L) hadn't even started production. Granted an L with an experienced pilot might be the best combo, it was just too late. Just my opinion.

Two things about the Lightning:

They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang.

At the time they lost faith with the P 38 the commanders of the 8th were desperate for an aircraft to protect their bombers all the way to the target and back again, they weren't consernrd

 

[pbehn]

At the time they lost faith with the P 38 the commanders of the 8th were desperate for an aircraft to protect their bombers all the way to the target and back again, they weren't consernrd

The P-38 did not have the range of the P51 on escort missions anyway.

 

[Greyman]

As for rolling with a FW-190A, the attached graph confirms about the low speed rates of roll between the P-38 and the FW.

Hi eagledad - do you know if the source for that P-38 data is available online? Do you know the stick forces used for the unboosted P-38 test?

For what it's worth I added RAE data from their testing of a boosted P-38J.

 

[eagledad]

Greyman,
The data was on the net and was taken from an article by Dr Carlo Kopp. An updated version of the article can be found at the following link:
Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Unfortunately, the updated version does not have the graphs from the earlier versions. However, before the old version was replaced, I did capture 2 other charts along with the roll chart previously presented.

Please note that the data was supplied by the Lockheed Corp, so draw what conclusions you want.


I am also attaching another roll chart that I found on the net along time ago for the P-38L-1.



Eagledad

 

[eagledad]

Greyman,

Being OAP (Old and Pathetic) I did not answer your question on stick forces. No data on stick force was given for any of the graphs I have. Over at Mike Williams and Niel Stirling's site they have a document that shows the stick force used was in the vicinity of 80 pounds. See the report at

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

Eagledad

 

[Greyman]

Whoops, I didn't realize your chart was in TAS. Re-uploaded the chart with the updated RAE curve, assuming:

• 10,000 feet altitude (RAE test makes no mention of altitude, but they seem to test all other roll rates there, large assumption I know)
• +2% mph per 1000 feet for IAS to TAS conversion

 

[DarrenW]

Eagledad was generous enough to compile the total claims made by P-38 pilots from the start of combat operations in the Pacific until the Hellcat's arrival at Guadalcanal. In my opinion, the idea that the destruction of roughly 350 Japanese aircraft somehow singlehandedly cleared the skies of all skilled aerial opposition from that point forward is ludicrous to say the least.

Questions About Japanese Air Power - 1943

 

[Schweik]

The Whirlwind was a way to bring 4 cannons in the air and still perform. Spitfire and Hurricane with 4 cannons were bad proposals before 1942 - Hurricane with 4 cannons and couple of bombs flying against the targets in occupied France?
Beaufighter was probably an even more expensive way to carry 4 cannons in the war, and it was a wrong machine to both fight against and run from the LW.
Let's recall that Whirlwind was an aircraft of 1939/40 flying against the LW of 1941 and '42. Sending Hurricane I or Spitfire I to do the same? And that RAF was not sending it's P-39s and P-40s against the LW in ETO.

Decisions on which fighters to use in ETO / Northwest was dictated, as air combat typically was, by the bombers. Level bombers dropping strings of bombs on Coventry from 22,000 feet are better attacked by planes with a performance ceiling above 20k. Though given the performance of the Hurricane in North Africa I wonder if the Brits would have benefited from having P-40s (and maybe for BoB, P-36/Hawk 75) in their defensive force. There is absolutely no doubt that P-40s had a much better record than any mark of the Hurricane against Bf 109s and other enemy aircraft in the Med, and Hurricanes seemed to have a ceiling problem of their own.

Interestingly, the numbers from Shores book series "Mediterranean Air War" make the Beaufighter look pretty good - he points this out himself. They were constantly taking down enemy aircraft and sinking ships, seemed to have both a lower overclaiming rate and a much lower loss rate than Hurricanes. A major factor here is probably the relatively short range of Bf 109s, but it by no means seems to have been a foregone conclusion that you would lose a Beaufighter if it encountered LW fighters.

S

 

[Schweik]

Not sure if anybody has the true number of tail failures and there seem to be several causes and/or contributing factors.

Point is that many aircraft had problems upon introduction with the first few dozen (or several hundred) built. P-36 had structural problems. P-40 had engine problems, P-47Bs caught fire in flight among other problems for instance, early FW 190s were hardly trouble free. Since there was never a MK II Whirlwind it's initial problems never really had a chance to get straightened out. How many of it's problems were fundamental flaws or were the fault of components/sub assemblies that could have been fixed in a later production run, like the tail wheel strut. Much more likely than not a bought in part/assembly from an outside supplier.
Since the manufacturing program was effectively canceled before a single squadron came close to being equipped with it and continued production was allowed only to use up already manufactured (or close to completed) parts there was zero incentive to design any "fixes" that would require major new parts/assemblies.
Canceling the Peregrine and Whirlwind made sense from a manufacturing stand point given what was known at the time but many of the reasons given after the fact don't seem to very solid.

Typhoon might actually be a candidate for most overrated, at least overrated in in 1940/41 when it was seen to be the answer to many of the RAFs needs/problems before actual flight performance and engine problems became known.

You make a good point - the Whirlwind was clearly a very promising design and many of the minor flaws it had were normal teething issues for a new plane, especially one with such an advanced design for when it came on scene. I think the main issue with the Whirlwind was a design problem - it had a very short range which in some senses, defeats the purpose of a twin engined fighter. They may have been able to pack more fuel into it, but basically the problem was also related to why it's performance was so good - it was a small plane for two motors. It had a 45' wingspan which is barely 5 feet more than a Hurricane. P-38 by contrast was 55' and Bf 110 was 53'

So to me that is the main question on the Whirlwind - could they fit more fuel in it?

S

 

[Schweik]

The Merlin can only be considered to be over-produced if you can point to reports of hundreds of extra engines just laying around in crates waiting for somebody to order them. Please remember that it was quite customary to order about 50% more engines than airframes to ensure an adequate number of spare engines.

Not sure what time period this would be but if this was in the 1942-1943 period they should have gone into P-40s! Or even P-38s. Not sure how easily a P-38 could have been modified to take a Merlin 60 but I think it could have been very beneficial and helped address at least some of the major problems plaguing that aircraft.

Send some to the Russians to put in LaGG-3 and Yak-7s and so forth.

Might have even helped the P-39.

S

 

[tomo pauk]

Decisions on which fighters to use in ETO / Northwest was dictated, as air combat typically was, by the bombers. Level bombers dropping strings of bombs on Coventry from 22,000 feet are better attacked by planes with a performance ceiling above 20k. Though given the performance of the Hurricane in North Africa I wonder if the Brits would have benefited from having P-40s (and maybe for BoB, P-36/Hawk 75) in their defensive force. There is absolutely no doubt that P-40s had a much better record than any mark of the Hurricane against Bf 109s and other enemy aircraft in the Med, and Hurricanes seemed to have a ceiling problem of their own.
...

I don't think that level bombers were bombing Coventry from 20000 ft, the 'best altitude' for the typical Jumo 211B/D was at around 12000-14000 ft (depending on amount of ram and power setting choosen). P-40 was a better performer than Hurricane, quirk beng that Hurricane was available earlier, in greater numbers, in 1940 it was better armed and it's engine was rated for greater power, and it was cheaper. P-36 instead of a Hurricane or Spitfore does not bring any new advatage to the RAF.
I'd say that Hurricane held a better exchange ratio in ETO + MTO than P-40, as well as better total of kills, it's timing was vastly better than of the P-40, let alone the importance for the ww2.

 

[Schweik]

I'd say that Hurricane held a better exchange ratio in ETO + MTO than P-40, as well as better total of kills, it's timing was vastly better than of the P-40, let alone the importance for the ww2.

That post rings with the sound of a gauntlet thrown down into the dirt! Do you have any numbers to back that up?

I would definitely challenge the MTO side of that statement. Its possible Hurricanes had a greater number of kills in ETO+MTO if you add the ~550 they got in the BoB with however many (not that many) they got in the MED, but once P-40s were on scene the ratio tipped dramatically in their favor in the MTO.

Unless Christopher Shores MAW is completely wrong, by 1942 Hurricanes were probably scoring something like 1/10th of the victories (both claimed and actual) than the P-40s were, and still taking very high casualties. Without a doubt the Hurricanes were suffering a higher per-sortie loss ratio particularly in air to air combat. Losses to flak were probably equivalent.

I'll try to count it tonight for 1942 through the end of the Tunisian campaign based on Shores numbers.

As for the P-36, I think the P-36 had a better victory/loss ratio than the Hurricane did in the Battle of France right? The main advantage of a P-36 over a Hurricane would be an ability to disengage (via high speed dive / split S) from German fighters which the Hurricane could not do. I know the P-36 squadrons had the best record for the French forces.

As for the altitude of typical bombers during the Blitz, does anyone have stats on that? I honestly don't know, I had assumed ~20k feet would be pretty normal for say He 111s etc. because it increases the time and to some extent, difficulty for an intercept and it is about the same altitude often flown by G4M and so on in the Pacific. But I really don't know. I'm sure someone here does.

S

 

[Schweik]

Probably because Camm had bought the RAE's flawed 'thick wing - is the go' malakey,
& since the Air Min had duly deemed..

' For future fighters, fuel tanks have to be mounted in the wings, away from the pilot'

Camm figured, - ok then, I've 2,000hp to play with & more to come, so I'll draw up a big, strong bird..

But the dreaded 'speed demon' emerged from the 'ughknown' - to plague him..

A blobbly lump of a radiator plopped on underneath the Hurricane's wing centre section worked well enough,
so why not do the same for the Tornado?

But... at ~400mph in level flight, WTF! Oh no.. compressibility troubles.. ok, so sling it under the nose
like the Typhoon & Bob's your bleedin' mums brother..

Interestingly the 1/2 sisters Tornado & Typhoon had one major difference, the more compact Sabre
could be fitted closer back to the cockpit & the X-type Vulture was mounted ahead of the wing..
big deal.. but.. Tornado dies with the sorry ol' dud of an R-R mill, so that's that..

Anyhow, Camm sees the flight performance numbers for the Typhoon, compares them with
the projections he'd been given by RAE, & realises he's been sold a pup.. & a naughty one..

So Camm goes to the NPL & sez, ' I've seen the Yank's new Mustang wing, what have you got?'
& an ultra-modern NPL profile becomes the new 'Hawker high-speed wing' & the Tempest emerges..

Camm tells Air Min, ' I cant bloody well fit all the juice in my new thin wing, & you keep approving
new Spitfire Mk's that don't either, so I am extending the nose to fit a tank behind the mill'.

Lo & behold, when the Tempest flies, she's a big improvement on the Typhoon, being over 20mph
faster on the same power, & much smoother, plus, when the higher altitude Sabre IV is trialled,
with leading edge radiators & a thinner section tailplane the Mk I prototype is making ~470mph,
@ ~25,000ft - in early 1943..

So the Typhoon goes on the development back-burner, never progressing beyond Mk Ib,
& picking up some Tempest hand-me-downs, 4-blade prop, thinner tailplane & bubble top..
( that clear view canopy really impressed stateside, with the P-47K being 1st of a bunch to copy it)..

Appreciate this as I've always been a bit confused by the precise differences between the Tempest and the Typhoon. Would love to see a more thorough side by side comparison.

S

 

[Schweik]

Based on this thread that google found for me on this here great forum, I see somewhat surprising numbers. I'll summarize, these are for the Battle of France but also including activities in Belgium and The Netherlands:

Total losses

Spits ----------67
Hurricanes --386
P-36-----------33

Victory claims

Spits----------??
Hurricanes--299
P-36----------200

This thread (mostly user Delcyros) also mentioned there were 4 squadrons of P-36, vs.16 with Ms406 (half later got Dewotine D520),8 had Bloch 151 and 152s. I couldn't find where it indicated how many Hurricanes and Spits were actually deployed (I had actually thought Spits were not used in France).

So based on this, the Hurricanes did get more total victories, but had a much worse ratio. Based on the above, P-36 had 6 victory claims for every loss, while Hurricanes had .77 victory claims for every loss. I assume that the number quoted on the P-36 is off, I think that may actually be the number of pilots killed. Still, even if you double or triple the number of shot down vs. crashed with pilot, it still looks like the P-36 is a much more effective fighter than the Hurricane just on those numbers. Certainly (if those numbers are right) a much better victory to loss ratio. Can't say for sure though since I doubt those numbers are correct.

Amazingly, the Me 110 apparently had the best sortie to loss rate of the whole battle.

Too bad for France they never did get those first 100 P-40Bs they had ordered, might have made a difference.

Its also amazing that the French actually had more aircraft and were producing more aircraft during the war than the Germans. Baffling. Obviously logistics were a problem, the German momentum was a problem. But I think the planes were too. The Ms 406 were very obsolete, draggy, over complicated, slow and definitely two steps behind the Bf 109 (probably a step or two behind the Bf 110. More appropriate for say 1936).

The Bloch 151 and 152 had potential, but were new designs which suffered from major teething issues and were difficult to fly. The Dewoitine were good but also somewhat difficult to fly and obviously the pilots had no time to familiarize themselves with the type. So out of 28 squadrons really only the 4 P-36s and whatever Hurricanes and Spits they had were really ready for prime time, and that was probably the main problem. The 8 squadrons of D.520s were good too but the timing ...

Actual German losses were:

close recon: 124 (66)
long range recon: 87 (47)
sea planes: 37 (6)
Bf-109: 250 (126)
Bf-110: 121 (50)
Ju-87: 123 (43)
Hs-123: 5 (14)
Ju-52 and othe transportation planes: 140 (74)
Fi-167 and other couriers: 33 (32)
Ju-88, Do-17, Do-15, He-111: 477 (214)
other planes: 4 (2)

Total 1,401 totally written off + 674 sent back to Germany for repairs. Probably a bit more than that if you count planes force-landed for a bullet hole in a radiator etc. (which had little tactical significance but would still count as a "victory" for the pilot who fired the bullet).

S

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure what time period this would be but if this was in the 1942-1943 period they should have gone into P-40s! Or even P-38s. Not sure how easily a P-38 could have been modified to take a Merlin 60 but I think it could have been very beneficial and helped address at least some of the major problems plaguing that aircraft.

Send some to the Russians to put in LaGG-3 and Yak-7s and so forth.

Might have even helped the P-39.

Bolded part, 2 years was a heck of long time during WW II and Guess what.

P-40Fs had two speed Merlins in Jan/Feb of 1942, only trouble was there weren't very many coming out of Packard at the time. WHile Packard built 801 engines in July of 1942 (2/3 for the British, remember) they had only built 109 in Jan 1942 and only 26 in Dec of 1941.

By May/June of 1943 there were hundreds of P-51B airframes waiting for 2 stage Merlins.
There simply (unless someone has real proof) not 100s of engines sitting around in crates waiting to be used.

I would note that US planners only supplied about 20% spare engines for the P-40F & L fighters used in North africa, due to the dirt/sand engines didn't last as long and this lead to the British giving the US up to 600 used engines, either for use or to be broken down for parts to overhaul the US engines.
Simply because someone has a photo or an acount/story of 100s of engines sitting in crates doesn't mean those engines weren't allocated or accounted for.
Please remember that most long distance shipping was done by rail and the number of engines sitting on loading docks/storage areas could vary considerably as a line of rail cars was loaded.
Rail movements were also carefully worked out to maximize total through put so perhaps engines were not shipped one or two rail cars at a time but in large batches.
"Just on time inventory" was not a wide spread practice in WW II.

 

[wuzak]

Too bad for France they never did get those first 100 P-40Bs they had ordered, might have made a difference.

There may have been good reason why they didn't arrive in time:

The first P-40B flew on March 13, 1941.

Curtiss P-40B

Edit:
The P-40 was not going to be available for the battle of France either:

The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on April 4, 1940.

And:

Deliveries of the P-40 to Army units began in June of 1940.

Curtiss P-40

In June 1940 France was in the midst of being invaded.

Initial deliveries of production aircraft to stateside US units that month does not bode well for getting them to France in time, or in any numbers.

 

[Schweik]

There may have been good reason why they didn't arrive in time:

In June 1940 France was in the midst of being invaded.

Initial deliveries of production aircraft to stateside US units that month does not bode well for getting them to France in time, or in any numbers.

Yes I know. Well aware! There was a famous batch of 100 P-40s which were intended for France but were sent to AVG or Java or Darwin I forget which. France was right on the cusp of modernizing their air forces. The first D.520s arrived in the middle of the war, the VG 33 was entering production, and the P-40s were on the way. If they had managed to draw it out another few months it could have made a major difference, though how that would happen I have no idea. Probably no way to manage it.

I doubt the Germans realized how close they were to defeat. Their invasion hinged to a large extent on air power (especially Stukas in the tactical support role). If the French had a few hundred more good quality fighters instead of MS. 406s and Bloch 152s they might have achieved air superiority.

Coulda woulda shoulda...

S