P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter? (1 Viewer)

[HealzDevo]

I would say neither, because what models of the P-51 and the P-38 Lightening are we talking? A P-38J Lightning had a pretty long range with tanks. A P-38 Lightning actually had more fire-power mounted in it, for actually blasting away at the enemy. So chances are most of the time it didn't get to be a dog-fight. Plus two engines to get you home. In Europe though the P-51 had an advantage. However, a lot depends on what sort of pilot we are talking about. The Germans were obviously interested in the P-38 design as I have photos of them in German Colours. It is the same with various marks of the P-51. Obviously the Germans regarded both types as very deadly to go to the trouble of fixing some examples and repainting them in German Colours.

 

[Hot Space]

P-51 I guess

 

[102first_hussars]

. Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific

Acutally thats not true, there was 100 P-51's that saw action between The Netherlands and China against the Japanese in the Pacific, this was all due to the lend-lease act.

 

[wmaxt]

A couple of things to consider.
Jack Ilfry felt the P-51 was the better escort fighter.

The P-38 fought in all theaters and even more importantly was the AAF air superiority fighter in all of them when it arrived on scene. When it arrived it was out numbered, lacked tactical experience, and had green pilots and support crew. When follow on aircraft arrived P-47 P-51s control of the air had been won (the ETO was 2/3 P-38 1/3 P-51 during this period).

The P-51 did not make a significant contribution anywhere but the ETO, in fact in the Pacific a little ditty ran "Don't give me a P-51...you'll run out of sky" There were still reports of P-51s losing tail sections in maneuver fights in April, '45.

Art Haiden makes a point of saying that the P-51 was easier to train pilots and got the job done (escort) but for dogfighting, he (and many others who flew both) wanted a P-38. On another forum a nephew of a P-51 pilot related this piece of advice about a P-38/P-51 match-up. "If your going to fight (a P-38) with a P-51 you better start a lot higher and faster to have a chance" The P-51 had the advantage in a turning fight above 250mph. Climb, initial dive, high speed roll, and acceleration were P-38 advantages. Speed in an L model was close, and the P-38 had an effective gun package out to 1,000yrds making it very diffucult to get away.

In '44/45 the P-38 cost ~$98,000, P-47 ~$87,000 and the P-51 ~$54,000.

I want the P-38

wmaxt

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

Acutally thats not true, there was 100 P-51's that saw action between The Netherlands and China against the Japanese in the Pacific, this was all due to the lend-lease act.

damn it my grandpa saw hundreds of mustangs in the Philippines

 

[syscom3]

Id say the argument is about the P38L vs the P51D

 

[timshatz]

Spoke to a guy once who was the head of the Warbirds association. Was thinking about getting into high performance piston engined (1,000Hp+) and wanted to know if I was heading in the right direction. Told him I was thinking of doing AT-6 and then heading into P51s. Asked him if he though the Mustang was the easiest to fly. He said he though the F4U was the easiest and that the Mustang was pretty advanced.

Not sure if I remember what he was flying but he had something similar. Said flying the P51 was very tricky, had to be retrimmed every time you changed a throttle setting. Also, landing was tough and people were taught to land on two wheels as apposed to three pointers. The Corsair was evidently easier to fly.

Also have heard from others that the P38 was a bear to keep running and also tricky to fly.

Anyway, that's my .02. Not interested in flying warbirds anymore but once was.

 

[syscom3]

Ive never heard about the P38 being hard to fly. Contra rotating props added to stability and the tricycle nose gear made landings and take off easy.

Keeping it in tune was tough though. Those cramped engine compartments with a maze of ducting for the turbocharger did give the mechanics some fits.

 

[HealzDevo]

I still maintain my point that the P-38 Lightning was a better plane for the Pacific because depending on the mission you could cut off power to one engine and cross-feed fuel. This would evidently extend its patrol radius even further. Also because you can get the enemy at 10,000 yards chances are if you were a good shot you could kill an enemy before a dog-fight occurred. Also with regards to needing to constantly trim the aircraft every time you changed a throttle-setting, how useful would that be in a dog-fight situation? I think, that the P-38 Lightning was actually more in trim with changing power settings so I have seen on other aircraft discussion forums, and needed less pilot work at a time when the pilot was devoting a lot of attention to achieving a kill. Also you had the speed to actually force the enemy to hang around. A P-51 Mustang couldn't outrun you let alone any of the Pacific Theatre aircraft. Also someone mentioned interestingly enough that as a pure fighter in sufficient quantities to be useful, it came after the P-38 Lightning had done all the hard work in the European Theatre and also later in the war the P-51 Mustangs would have been rarely seriously challenged due to fuel shortages for German Aircraft which would have severely affected the training of their pilots as well. Therefore it would seem this is leading to the P-38 Lightning. Although later on in the Korean War the P-51 Mustang did prove itself very capable. So I really don't know. I suppose they were designed for different purposes.

 

[pbfoot]

at 10000yds you would be hardpressed to even see the other guy

 

[syscom3]

I'd agree about the P38 being the superior plane in the PTO. Those twin engine saved many a pilot.

The P47N and P51H might have been superior to the Lightning, untill their engine (and/or radiator on the P51) was damaged and they were 700 miles from base.

 

[HealzDevo]

I might have accidently added a few too many zeros but still the point stands that a cannon is able to shoot further most of the time and do more damage. The P-51 was armed with in-wing machine guns. Therefore it didn't really work for its purpose.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Ive never heard about the P38 being hard to fly

you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........

It actually wasn't - the problem was during WW2 comprehensive multi engine aircraft training only went to bomber pilots, especially early in the war...

The P-38 was actually simple to fly as far as multi engine aircraft go - it had no "critical engine" which meant if you knew what you were doing, engine out procedure on take off were relatively easy....

 

[syscom3]

Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.

Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.

Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.

Great info Sys!

The big "killers" on the P-38 were engine out take off and landings (Especially the take offs) which are killers on any twin. Additionally many green P-38 drivers would get their aircraft in termanl dives and never pull out becuase of compressibility, especially on early P-38 models. I'm convinced becuase of this lockheed and the AAF always "lowballed" the P-38's top speed....

 

[wmaxt]

A few excerpts from a AAF tactical test of the P-38F compared with P-40F, P-51, P-47C, and P-39D.

Flight testing @ Eglin Field, Florida. Tactical suitability of the P-38F. 6 March 1943.

For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and firepower, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station.

The P-38F is very hard to stall power on and will fly until almost vertical.

Turn is slightly inferior below 10,000ft, equal from 10,000ft to 15,000ft and superior above 15,000ft.

The test report also has many criticisms of the P-38, including intercooler capacity, cockpit heat, dive speed/controllability, etc. The report is at
www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38f-tactical-trials. The forum keeps truncating the site, go to spitfire.com and check the bottom P-38 performance page and you will find this report.

As for difficulty flying the P-38 had one of the best accident rates in '45, 58% of P-51 accident rate and only 26% of P-47 accident rate, after training on effective engine out procedures was implemented.

The P-38J-25/L models had no maneuvering restrictions.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.

First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.

Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.

 

[wmaxt]

There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.

First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.

Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.

Those are important points, there were a lot of prejudice and rumor about the P-38 in the ETO. I think that was the primary problem with the P-38 in Europe.

Mr Saki, and Stienhoff both made the point that one aspect of the P-38 that they hated was its ability to show up anywhere or anytime and still have the advantages.

wmaxt

 

[lesofprimus]

No matter how good a combat pilot is, or how well he can fly his specific crate, combatting with dual engines is way more difficult than a single engine... There were 2 handfuls of guys that flew the -38 with the balls required to make it a superior combat aircraft.... A large % of P-38's were easy pickings for the German Aces in the ETO....