P-38 Lightening vs YAK 9

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

Honestly, I can't prove the P-38's turning ability, and I can't prove that the the P-38s fought the 109s in a controlled environment. After all, every fight is different, though I remember reading somewhere that next to the P-40E, the P-38(F?) had the lowest stall speed of any US fighter. I hope someone knows which document I'm talking about

Perhaps the P-38 turned faster because it slowed down faster than a P-51 but a wing slatted-109 which slows down quickly as well (compared to a P-51 in particular) should outturn a P-38 but many accounts state that this is not true. That is not to say that the P-38 indefinitely outturns a 109, I just get the impression that it does since the accounts I've seen support a tight turning 38. Plus you've got those counter-rotating props which don't create torque at low speeds. Pretty helpful not having that other force acting against you.

However Galland did say the P-38 was easy meat, but many pilots had their opinions of other aircraft as well.

Oh and did the P-38L not roll out of factories with the ability to produce 1,725 hp per engine? AFAIK the USAAF then lowered max. rpm to allow a production of only 1,600 hp. I'm sure the power-to-weight ratio for the P-38L was better than the P-38H. Are those 443 mph figures I've seen for the 38L running at 54" HG with full 1,725 hp/engine fake?
 

The factory figures are usually well documented including weights and conditions..
 
It is really complex, and the engines/booms would change the property of the wing.

You now more than I do about this.

But in anecdotal reports i seem to remember the P-38 being more agile in the horizontal than the p-51 and even had an edge over the 109. though I'm not sure what models these are comparing. (I think this was mid 1943)
 

KK - I think one of the advantages (overall) in this forum is that facts are either force fed, or anedotal comments are frequently challenged making it difficult to use phrases like 'best', 'far superior' (pick your favorite) without some heavy qualifications and/or unimpeachable sources.

We all enter with a set of bias' and predjuice for a POV and most of us, myself specifically included, think a little more before opening mouth so to speak.

the P-38, in comparison with say the 109G2's should not have been more agile in the horizontal than the 109 at medium to low speeds.. just based on total drag, no boosted ailerons, no manuevering flaps, less Hp (relatively speaking) than the 109 - which also had slats to help out when it was pushed to stall threshold... Aircraft that are not exceptionally clean with nearly the same power loading and wing loading will tend to lose energy faster as they pull more G's - always a wildcard in a manuevering fight.

Theoretically this is why the early 47Cs and Ds should have stayed out of the low altitude, medium speed arena against the Fw 190 and Me 109.

When it lost energy it took awhile to get it back. At high altitudes the pig put on lipstick and became an altogether different beast with Hp and lift to burn in comparison with the previously nimble lightweights... in other words in its original design element for which it was planned - high altitude.

But I don't KNOW that personally but always open to the occsaional jewel that often surfaces here. I don't buy the thesis that the 38 was 'better' in horizontal than the 109 at low to medium altitudes where most of the 38 battles were fought in 42 and 43 in MTO... but I have been wrong before
 

I don't believe the P-38 will do anything well versus most aircraft in a sustained turn fight. Some flight games seem to model this well. In many instances in Aces High II for example (I'm not using the game as proof of anything, just using it as an example of how it may be possible for maneuverability to be there one day and gone the next), I often play against my friend who is a 109/Ki-84 'pilot' so to speak in-game. During many encounters, it seems that I can follow his turns easily particularly in the vertical in the P-38J. But when it comes down to low level, flat turning, he WILL out turn me after about 4 revolutions. One there's any bit of vertical fighting in the equation (like a slightly vertical turn fight where the circle isn't flat) I'll likely win since it feels as though I can hold on to speed much better. Plus, it seems trendy for very high-wingloaded aircraft to keep lots of speed during a high speed turn and thus turn faster. The P-38 also has an extra advantage at very low speeds where a single engine aircraft would experience some torque effect.

Oh yea, and I never use Wiki to cite my claims. That stuff if 30% incorrect it seems. I usually use Osprey Aces books or this site: WWII Aircraft Performance
 
Alright so I did some research today. I looked up some AFDU trials on the P-47C versus the P-38F. The P-38F has a slightly higher power loading at full fuel/ammo weight of about 0.17 hp/lb while the P-47C has about 0.15 hp/lb at full fuel/ammo weight.

The P-47C however, has a lighter wingloading of 46.5 lb/sq ft. and the P-38F has it at 48.6 lb/sq ft.

The AFDU trials say that the P-38F turns slightly better than the P-47C and even better to the right because of the Thunderbolt's torque. The trial says that the Mustang X (a Merlin 65-fitted P-51 prototype) turned identically with the P-47C (I believe none of these tests were done with flaps).

Further, the AFDU trials state that the slightly heavier but more powerful P-38G out turns the P-38F easily especially with combat flaps settings.

This does NOT prove that the P-38 turns better than the 109 for example but it does show that, under a controlled environment, the P-38 has the ability to surprise the enemy and does have at least, adequate turning performance. I wouldn't be surprised if a P-38H or J would out turn the 109 at least on 50% of encounters.
 
p-38
Performance
Maximum speed: 443mph War Emergency Power-1725 hp@64inHG(28,000ft)(Courtesy of Lockheed-Martin Corp.)
414mph on Military Power-1425hp@ 54inHG (667 km/h at 7,620 m)

Stall speed: 105 mph (170 km/h)
Range: 1,300 mi combat, over 3,300 mi (5,300 km) ferry (1,770 km / 3,640 km)
Service ceiling 44,000 ft (13,400 m)
Rate of climb: maximum: 4,750 ft/min (1,448 m/min)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260.9 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg)
Turn Radius: At Eglin Field in 1942, the P-38 was said to have an "equal or tighter radius of turn from 15,000 ft (4,600 m) on up" against the P-51, P-40, P-47 and other aircraft. The tests were conducted with the engine power restricted, which means the P-38F that was tested was probably a bit more maneuverable. Further versions of the P-38 were even more agile, especially the P-38L. (The rate of roll was also found too slow at high speeds and medium at low speeds.)

yak 9
Lift-to-drag ratio: 13.5
Maximum speed: 367 mph at altitude (591 km/h)
Range: 845 miles (1,360 km)
Service ceiling 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Rate of climb: 2,690 ft/min (13.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 37 lb/ft² (181 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.17 hp/lb (0.28 kW/kg)

it sound like te p38 is a beter plane bout it olso dipends on the pilot that flys them don u tink
 
Yes but we're trying to figure out if the P-38 really can out turn aircraft like the 109 or Yak. And most trials are done with test pilots of generally the same skill.

I concluded that it cannot turn tighter but, with the mentioned data in my last post, it seems possible that the P-38 will turn faster due to such factors like thrust, inertia and a lot of other stuff I don't yet fully understand.

But there's a lot of controversy around this subject. That's why no one really knows if, given equal pilots, a P-38 will out turn 109's in most conditions. Judging on both 109 and P-38 accounts, it seems quite possible but not without some speed and flap use.

Where did you get that data? it states that the P-38L is BETTER than the P-38F (which is probably better than the P-38G and thus better than the H) despite being much heavier. But watch out for any Wikipedia stuff or random internet figures. They're not specific enough and are often wrong. Though have been shown evidence that the P-38L does have a good amount more hp than the other P-38's and had enough performance to easily compete with the likes of the F4U-4 and Spitfire XIV. The official USAAF figures restricted the maximum rpm of the P-38L however and so the L model performed a little worse if anything compared to the J.
 
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I decided to skip reading through the entire thread.

Who said the P-38 was not a manuverable aircraft.
Wasn't that part of the idea of the counter rotating props?
...also, it had two engines. What's to stop a pilot from cranking the power on the outboard engine a little, during a turn, in order to get the 38 to come around quicker (or power down the inboard engine, whichever would work better)...could also adjust one prop with a slightly different pitch for similar effect (just remember to reset upon completing turn )


Elvis
 
I think that MIGHT help every now and then but 'throttle jockeying' as it was known, pretty much just increases yaw and torque on one side. You'd might as well just use rudder.
 


Where did you get this data?
 
looks like Wikipedia.

Not the best.

Btw, I was reading my F4U-1 series manual when I came across a paragraph that suggested to lift the aircraft off with full flaps under heavy loads. I also remember seeing FAA Corsairs in B&W film lift off with full flaps.

Question:
Was it only the Corsair with this ability or was it logical to lift other fighters off with full flaps? I know Spits never did it because their thin split flaps (placed almost at the trailing edge) caused more drag than lift at full 48 degrees.
 
evangilder said:
Not according to the official history of the Philippine Air Force.
Click to expand...

Hi Evanglider

Official Histories can be wrong, in fact they often are. i remember some years ago reading about O'Connors victory in Cyrenaica (against the Italians, in 1940-41), it triumphantly trumpeted the massively one-sided casualtiy list, quoting some minute casualty figure for the British forces. I came away, with this awe of the massive superiority of British military prowess.

Years later, I came across the same article, but by then had two university degrees, and the wealth of twenty years of research and gaming. I realized what the official history had done. it had not lied, lets put that in the picture from the start. And in terms of general trends it was correct. O'Connors victory in Cyrenaica, was an impressive victory. And the casualty figures for the british were correct (more or less). But the British forces engaged in the early battles were a relatively minor contribution to the battle. The majority of casualties were suffered by the Dominion and Indian forces. British military prowess was not quite as good as the history would have the reader believe.

Now, I am going to hazard a few guesses in regard to the issue at hand. i am guessing firstly that the pilots of these planes were not filipino, but Americans, being paid by the filipinos. If the pilots had the necessary prowess as you say, it is hard to see these being filipinos, with perhaps just a few months of non-combat experience. however, if they were American, they would in all probability have a much greater amount of flying time

Secondly, nearly every Japanese plane in 1941-42 were reported as Zeroes. It could just as easily be Nates, or perhaps even Claudes. The Japanese had captured advance air bases very early, so as to allow their shorter ranged fighters the ability to participate in the battle.

Thirdly, it may well have been Zeroes, but if those zeroes were operating from Formosa, they would have been at the limits of their range. They may have been carrying drop tanks. All of which would severely limit the performance of the zeroes

Some years ago, I read claims made on behalf of the allies, claiming that in the first months of the war, more than 500 Japanese aircraft were shot down over Burma from December through to February (I think). It was a relatively "official history". But these claims have to be seriously questioned. The japanese did not have that many aircraft operating over burma, The admitted losses by the japanese are a fraction of those claimed by their opponents, and lastly, other western sources put total Japanese combat losses at a far lower level to the numbers claimed. I am not in a position to verify one way or anaother, but I can say it is always risky to develop an hypothesis on the basis of just one spurce.
 
Hi Claidemore

I doubt if there is a theatre where more misinformation is prevalent than the eastern front. People (including myself), need to be pretty careful when making claims.

I have a book Hardesty "Red Phoenix- the rise of Soviet Air force 1941-45", in which he constantly attacks the gross mis-reporting that goes on more or less as a national pastime in the western accounts, when assessing Soviet capability.

For example, Hardesty reports the German air losses at Kursk as 854, whilst 566. I wont bore you with his sources, but they look impressive. If he is even half right Soviet rigidity and poor training sure seems to pay off.

The Soviets were inflexible, but the re-organaizations under Novikov in 1942 were beginning to start paying off by 1943. Soviet airpower began to really flex its muscles from Hursk, and never really looked back from there.

I have another book which I hold in some regard, "Stopped At Stalingrad- The Luftwaffe and hitlers Defeat In the east" by JSA Hayward. Has impressive references, and adopts the line that the LW was almost unstoppable in 1942, but by the end of that year, its operational status had sunk so low, and the Soviet capability grown so much, that the defeat of the LW co-incided more with the Stalingrad battle, rather than the Kursk. He concedes some recovery in the first months of 1943, but insufficient to offset the increases in Soviet capability. He states operational readiness (the key number for the east front) as 71 % in 6/42, dropping to 35% in December, rising to something under 50% in 1943, and then sinking again after Kursk. How can the nazis hope to compete against a force 4 or five times its size, when half its aircraft cant even fly, and are strung out all across the front
 
Sgt. Pappy said:
I think that MIGHT help every now and then but 'throttle jockeying' as it was known, pretty much just increases yaw and torque on one side. You'd might as well just use rudder.
Click to expand...

True, but what about used with the rudder.

I realize in the heat of battle this isn't always the prudent descision, or one that may even occur to anyone, but if someone really knew their P-38, they may have used that to their advantage...even if they never told anyone else about it.




Elvis
 
Parsifal, I see what you are saying, but making a guess that the pilots were American if the claims are true is pure speculation. While I would agree that the Americans had better training and more experience, the Filipino pilots were fighting for their own homes, with their families in danger as well. Never underestimate the tenaciousness of a man fighting to defend his own home and family. In some cases, they will fight harder and take bigger risks because of what is at stake.

I have seen that written in several places, but sometimes several sources are based on a single source, so the jury is still out on it. The only point I was making is that no matter what the stats are on the individual aircraft, it comes down to the guy in the cockpit and luck. In many cases, it was a case of who saw whom first, regardless of the aircraft in the fight.
 
SoD Stitch said:
I'd heard something similar; individual initiative was not something that was taught to the Soviet pilots during the War.
Click to expand...
Actually the soviet tactics gave much more freedom and initative to the wingmen as in the luftwaffe, where the wingman mostly gave cover to the attacking plane.

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.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ - in some flying schools (Kacha, Orenburg) was rather poor, in some - decent to good with 200 flying hours.
... or stick to their wingman,
Click to expand...
I believe this is actually the only way to survive for a rookie in combat

BTW, the source for my information is certainly not impeccable; it's Toliver Constable's The Blond Knight of Germany.
Click to expand...
you can't call THIS a source, don't you
 

True enough....many sources report that in 1939 the PAF was basically demolished on the first day. That is now known to be totally untrue. Units of the PAF were fighting more than a week later, and quite effectively. German air losses over Poland are variously reported as anywhere between 200 and 550 aircraft lost, depending on who you believe. My best estimate, based on a number of different reports, is that the germans lost in the vicinity of 250 aircraft 9combat losses, including losses to AA). An impressive number can be attributed to the little P-11cs, which in many ways are only slightly better than the P-26's

So your claims are entirely plausible, but in my opinion would need some additional research before breaking out the trumpets and demanding a fanfare.

Regards

Michael
 
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