P-38 Lightening vs YAK 9

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

santosh said:
P-38 were the worst planes in the pacific theatre..coz lots of them were shot down by the japanese zero.
Click to expand...



Your actually going to make the claim that the P-38 was the worst plane in the Pacific.

WOW.

From Wiki....

The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the Pacific theater, where it proved ideally suited, combining excellent performance with very long range. The P-38 was used in variety of roles, especially escorting bombers at altitudes bettween 18-25,000ft. The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other USAAF fighter. Freezing cockpits were not a problem at low altitude in the tropics. While the P-38 could not out-maneuver the Mitsubishi Zero and most other Japanese fighters, its speed and rate of climb gave American pilots the option of choosing to fight or run, and its focused firepower was even more deadly to lightly-armored Japanese warplanes than to the Germans'.



From P-38 Lightning in Pacific Theatre

The Lightning was ideally suited for the Pacific theatre. It possessed a performance markedly superior to that of its Japanese opponents. It possessed a range significantly better than that of the P-39s, P-40s and P-47s available in 1942 in the Southwest Pacific, and its twin engines offered an additional safety factory when operating over long stretches of water and jungle. The Lightnings proved to be extremely rugged and could take a lot of battle damage and still keep flying. Missions lasting 9, 10, or even 12 hours became routine, and many wounded Lightnings were able to limp home on only one engine. The maneuverability of the Lightning was inferior to that of its nimble Japanese opponents, but by the use of appropriate tactics--for example the avoidance of dogfighting at low altitudes and the use of fast diving attacks--enabled the P-38 squadrons in New Guinea and the Solomons to achieve impressive results.

When compared with the Zero, the Lightning came off badly in terms of speed and maneuverability at medium and low altitudes, but had a far higher top speed, rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. When the P-38 tried to outturn a Zero at low altitudes, it usually ended up second best. However, when the unique attributes of the Lightning were used to best effect, the results were devastating. The best tactic was for the Lightnings to loiter at high altitudes and then dive down on Zero formations in a blaze of concentrated firepower, using the Lightning's impressive climbing rate to zoom back up out of harm's way. If this did not work, the wise Lightning Lightning pilot would then use his superior speed to make good his escape.
 
Joe,

He is right, the P-38 sucked!

So does the F-15, P-51, Hellcat, TA-152!

Didn't you know that? Lots of them all were shot down.

 

I'd heard something similar; individual initiative was not something that was taught to the Soviet pilots during the War. There are, of course, exceptions (Pokryshkin comes to mind) but, for the most part, Russian pilots were taught to fly fight as a group, so breaking formation to pursue an enemy was frowned upon. Very inexperienced pilots tended to keep flying straight level, or stick to their wingman, which made them easy prey for German (and, in this case, American) pilots. BTW, the source for my information is certainly not impeccable; it's Toliver Constable's The Blond Knight of Germany.
 
Hunter368 said:
He is right, the P-38 sucked!

So does the F-15, P-51, Hellcat, TA-152!

Didn't you know that? Lots of them all were shot down.
Click to expand...

Ok, your argument is too compelling and you have convinced me. The P-38 was a piece of crap.


Seriously though. Eric, your right about the training of the P-38 pilots. When I was looking for a little documentation to counter the fantastic theory that Santosh had, everywhere stated how the training they got was in a single engined plane until late '44.
 
I believe thats why more then a few pilots killed themselves in a P-38, not b/c it was a bad plane but b/c they never received the proper training how to fly it.
 

It changed somewhere in the mid-43, when Russians got situation under control and better planes. I-15/I-16 duo, ŁaGG-3, MiG-3 and Yak-1/Yak-7 (even early Yak-9) simply sucked and were inferior even to relative old German planes (like Bf 109E-4). fact, that before the war Stalin ordered execution of most good officers did not helped much.

In such conditions Russians needed someone who can start, shot and land if he is luck enough to survive the flight. Typical flight training before sending pilot to the fight was... 3 hours!

It changed when better planes entered service (La-5FN, Yak-9 M and later Yak-9U) and better equipement (radios). Tactics and formations changed because of this from rather non elastic three planes formation (leader with radio, wingmens with receivers) to the more elastic 2 planes formation (both with radio). Near the end of the war the flight hours before sending to the front raised and in the fighter divisions served mostly pilots who were either trained by the new rules or survived the first part of the war (which mean - they were very good). I would say that (excluding different fighting doctrines and tactics) Russian pilots were not worse then americans.

BTW - American pilots, in opinion of polish pilots while quite enthusiastic, were not good trained.


In opinion of russian fighter pilots Yak-9 (especially verions T and D/DD) were too heavy and lacked the manoeuvrability of Yak-1. They were better armed and armored, but not as maneuvrable as one may think. Suffered both the horizontal (higher wing loading) and vertical (lower power/weight ratio in pre Yak-9U planes) maneuvrability.
 
Zarathos said:
I would say that (excluding different fighting doctrines and tactics) Russian pilots were not worse then americans.

BTW - American pilots, in opinion of polish pilots while quite enthusiastic, were not good trained.
Click to expand...
In 1941 Soviet fighter were being downed at a very high ratio by German ones, and the US air arms were still at peace. Bt 1943 the Soviets had had two years to address that situation and the US air arms were just entering combat in Europe (very few US fighter units fought the Germans in 1942). I think 1943 might be the valid year for 'Polish pilots thought US ones enthusiastic but not well trained'. In 1944 US fighters were facing the bulk of the LW fighter force deep inside Germany and RAF(and Poles etc under their organization) were not there to watch, limited by their shorter legged fighters to areas of Occupied Europe areas where not much of the LW fighter force was operating anymore.

So, the green US units of 1943 by basic common sense were likely not as good as the most experienced and successful Soviet units of 1943. But how about later in the war when both had learned their lessons? Soviet and German loss stats show that even in 1944 Soviet fighters had a <1 exchange ratio v German fighters, with all the improved equipment, organization and trainng you correctly mentioned, apparently around 1:2 or poorer (a large % of Soviet fighter losses were 'failed to return' no other cause given so hard to say exactly). The US ratio by that time was considerably better. But, the conditions were not exactly the same, so debate can continue. Again though, the US and Soviet AF's fought one another directly, extensively, just 5 years after WWII, and that meeting did not appear to show parity between them either, not according again to the losses recorded by both sides, as in the LW/Soviet case, according to then-secret records since declassified by both.

Joe
 
Hunter368 said:
Joe,

He is right, the P-38 sucked!

So does the F-15, P-51, Hellcat, TA-152!

Didn't you know that? Lots of them all were shot down.

Click to expand...



But the Ta 152 doesn't really work since iirc none was ever shot down, though they only made 11 kills as well. (going by memory)

I beleive Soren mentioned this on the Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever... thread.
 
Zarathos,

I too have heard rumors of very low time pilots being sent into combat by the Soviets. That doesn't seem to line up with other reports.
Osoaviakhim,(sort of an air force cadet training program) had over 100,000 pilots trained even before the start of hostilities.
Shortage of pilots never seems to have been a problem for the Russians, while shortage of planes was. In fact they had cadres of experienced pilots waiting their turn at the factories to get new planes as they rolled off the assembly lines.
I've seen reports of anywhere from 300 to 500 hours for pilots before they were 'allowed' to join front line units.
Of course there was a lot of dis-organization in the first year of the war, and a 3 hour pilot could have been sent up, but I think it is much more likely that they had 3 hours on a particular type, ie Yak or Mig, rather than 3 hours total time. We often hear the similar numbers quoted for BoB pilots, with sources saying pilots were sent up in Spitfires with less than 10 hours flight time. It seems that the 10 hour number was for total time at OTU, (Operation Training Unit) on Harvards and/or Spitfires. The pilots would have had previous training on Tiger Moths, Magisters etc.

Soviet pilots considered the LaGGs and Yaks to be superior to Emil variants of the 109, in both horizontal and vertical maneuvers. They considered the F2/F4 109s to be better vertically compared to Soviet fighters, but similar horizontally. (they mistakenly thought they had better high alt performance when the captured F2 performed poorly at alt, but this was due to problems with that F2 plane). All the 109s had higher dive speeds and ceilings, and F and G models nearly always had a max speed advantage.

A big problem for the Soviet pilots was ridgid tactical doctrine. When their job was escort, they absolutely were forbidden to leave the bombers, they could only chase off attacking fighters. That put them in a continual defensive position, always being attacked first. This is the same situation that effectively 'tied up' the Luftwaffe during BoB, except much more rigourously enforced and continued throughout the course of the war.

Agree with your assessement of Yak 9 compared to Yak 1. Yak 1 was only replaced in production with the Yak 3. I believe the Yak 9 would still have had a turn advantage over 109G6 and FW190s. It's interesing that some Luftwaffe aces said the Yaks were the master of horizontal and vertical maneuver, while some Soviet Aces say the same thing about the 109. Gunther Rall said: "Yak and LaGG, very good."
 

If anything, the P-38 will turn faster than the P-51.. especially with flaps. Tighter, hell no. Faster, hell yea. The huge thrust and lower amount of drag produced for every lift co-efficient unit in the Fowler flaps (compared to the P-51s flaps) will likely allow the P-38 to retain more speed in the same given AoA...

There are a bunch of instances where P-38's outturned 109 aces.. particularly in the MTO where, early on I hear, P-38 pilots had better training than in the ETO.
 

P-38 pilots were flying combat missions against LW long before 8th AF (nearly a year before 55th FG fist mission) and in better climate (mid to low level) in North Africa and Italy for most missions... so experience was a more important factor in late 1943 timeframe.

In fact the 82nd FG had 200 destroyed in the air one year before the top Mustang Group, the 354th and well ahead of the 56th and 4thFG in P-47s.

Also in fact the 82nd FG scored more air to air in the P-38 than both the 20th and 55th FG combined for their entire P-38 record from fall 1943 through July 44 when they converted to Mustangs.

As to performance, the P-38L is the only version that was basically equal to 51B/C/D and then probably less capable than the H.

As to turn - this debate wanders all over the place. You could be the first to demonstrate that the two were flown in controlled environments in a controlled set of conditions to arrive at the conclusion. Could you point us to it?

I suspect the prime value of the P-38L manuevering flap was to Decrease speed, with plenty of power available, and thus tighten the turn, then use the excellent accleration of the twin engines to accelerate quickly.

The 51 flaps were not demonstrated to improve combat manuever performance in contrast because the cycling time on 10-20 degrees of flaps was longer than the 38L manuever flaps.. It would cut the radius by increasing drag but the 51 acceleration would be slower in comparison.
 
There is a pdf, R&M 2381, which i believe I found somewhere on Mike Williams site, that has some comparisons of Spitfire and Blenheim dogfighting capabilities. Of course most of the technical stuff in the report is pure Greek to me, but I thought it might be of some use in looking at the P38 turn.

BTW, my limited understanding of aerodynamics tells me that turn radius is directly related to turn time, the faster you go, the bigger the radius, and it's the same for every plane, jumbo jet to Sopwith Camel. So according to that understanding, no plane can make a same diameter 'circle' faster than another, they have to turn tighter to turn faster. Am I wrong?
 

Attachments

  • Blenheim turn.bmp
    730.3 KB · Views: 161

Partly, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking. The varius aircraft will run into turn turn performance issues for several reasons.

The Centripetal forces, normalized to primary aircraft axis 'G' forces, are funtion of (mV>>2/radius).

1. One aircraft or pilot may be able to sustain a higher G load (and still not 'run out of lift' as a consequence) at a Higher speed and bank angle for the same radius. To achieve this, he (and his aircraft) must be able to sustain the greater loads and also his aircraft must have a Clmax range great enough to successfully create enough lift at the higher angle of attack to offset gravity.

You can see why a 90 degree bank with sustained altitude is impossible - there is no airfoil whose lift component vector opposite gravity can 'pull' in opposite direction enough to keep the airplane at same altitude..

So, in this case the radius could be the same but the a/c and pilot combo is capable of 'closing' with higher velocity (by running the same diameter faster) on the lower G condition aircraft - or the radius is reduced AND the aircraft is faster - but pulling more G's, steepening the bank angle, staying within Angle of Attack for Clmax and having an airframe/pilot combo capable of the extra G's.

For the chasing aircraft who exceeds the Clmax, it stalls - for the chasing aircraft that can't handle the G's - he blacks out or the wings come off.

this is why use of G suits by Allied pilots were very important for similar performance a/c in turning manuevers or dive pull outs..

2.) aircraft that fall below the 'sustained level flight' Lift component (vector lift component opposite of Gravity) and/or thrust below combined drag components will descend in a spiral in that condition. The radius of the spiral will be greater than that of level flight preceeding that condition.

The a/c capable of maintaining the same bank angle and speed and level flight will have an advantage over the one that can't.

This is an area where a 109 flown by a skilled pilot at low altitude and speed will have an edge over the Mustang in this arena.

3.) as the bank angle increases, the incremental lift required to support level flight for that bank angle also raises induced drag to add to profile and parasite drag. If it is also still in a high G turn you will also get small drag increments from flight controls and you will probably have some elastic deformation of the wings which may change either local angle of attack or the pressure distribution over the wing.

The latter condition is allegedly the cause for the Fw 190 nasty stall chracteristics in a high G turn - when it occurred.

Condition 3 is the area least susceptible to precision theoretical calculations and the flight profile most uncertain with respect to stability and control parameters.

An airplane that 'hunts', oscillates or has other quirky characteristics is one the pilot has to baby the most at the most critical time.

I will ponder and see if I missed something important - I probably have.
 
Some a/c also can maintain a higher speed in turns than others in the same radius turn. (though this would also mean a higher G load) I'm not great with aerodynamics either (particularly quantitative) but generally it depends on the airfoil's CL (and any devices that alter it; ie slats or flaps) together with the wing loading you can find the lift loading, then there's the lift:drag (dependent on wing plan-form and AR), and power loading. (the high AR of the P-38's wing along with excellent power loading and twin prop wash would give an advantage, particularly in a sustained turn, though the high wing loading was only be partially mitigated by the P-38's flaps; though the P-51 had a low lift airfoil by comparison)

There re a lot of variables to consider, but at a glance I'd say that (in most conditions) the P-38J/L would turn faster and tighter than the P-51D. On another comparison (which I have seen actual statistics for) the F4U-4 with good power loading and a high lift airfoil, could turn tighter (ie smaller radius) but not faster (ie slower turn rate) than the P-38L.

Also the fowler flaps on (most) P-38's were much more effective than other types of flaps.

Here:
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
775
Jerrybandit67
J
Yak-9 vs P-51
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
Demopan78
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register