P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

It's hard to make a comparison like this, with any two types of WWII fighters. To compare the P-51 and P-38 is hard unless you largely narrow down the categories. The P-51 was a better all round fighter (air to air), but the P-38 was definitely a force to be reckoned with. The P-38 had very good turning and climb performance at altitudes above 20,000 feet, but could not dive as well as anything due to problems with compressibility in most variants. The P-51 was a "better" performer than the P-38 at all altitudes, but above 20,000 ft as mentioned this gap shrunk considerably. The achievements of the mustang in the ETO were nothing short of amazing but again you have to look at all the factors involved. Rather than write a book here, I will say that both fighters along with the P-47 were outstanding, and any one of them was capable of winning the war. I look at combat experience, and achievements when comparing fighter aircraft types (at least when discussing war topics) and its hard to choose one over the other in such a large envelope of categories.

And in what category was the P-38 significantly superior to the P-51 (Merlin-engined)? I can't think of many and I doubt that these will make up for the economical advantages of the P-51.

In the category of availability - P-38 made it's mark on WW2 way before P-51B/C/D did.

I wonder if the better question might be...
Which plane, would the absence of, have had the most effect on the war?

If there was never a P51 vs. if there was never a P38.

riacrato said:

And in what category was the P-38 significantly superior to the P-51 (Merlin-engined)? I can't think of many and I doubt that these will make up for the economical advantages of the P-51.

Click to expand...

This is a very broad topic as I mentioned before. If you are just considering air to air combat then one trait the P-38 had that was superior to the P-51 was it's gun emplacement. Placing the guns directly on the nose reduced jamming tendancies when compared to guns on the wing of a fighter, and the fact that it had a 20mm cannon gave it some advantage in firepower. It's not all just about flight performance when compaing two fighters (IMO). I totally agree the P-51 had higher performance, that's a given. But other aspects of a fighter can give it an advantage over an aircraft with higher flight performance, and all aircraft have some sort of performance advantage over another, even if it is small. I mean the P-51 and P-38 were inferior to the P-47 in rate of dive, the P-38 and P-51 were superior to the P-47 in a climb, the FW-190 and P-47 were superior to the P-51 in roll rate, the Japanese A6M, Ki-43, etc. were superior to almost anything in rate of turn at most altitudes, even the P-51, the Bf-109 was superior to the Spitfire in a dive, the P-47 was more rugged than pretty much anything, I could go on and on, and I'm sure you already know this anyways. The P-51 had the best overall combination of speed, acceleration, and range I agree,but all aircraft can explot their advantages either large or small to gain a victory. The P-51 was able to defeat the Luftwaffe because it's range enabled it to go anywhere the bombers went (which is where the Luftwaffe normally was). However even though it had superior performance in most areas, those BF-109's and FW-190's still fought well, and took their toll of P-51's, P-38's and P-47's etc. Just nowhere near enough to win the war. But there are so many aspects you have to consider which really makes it hard to compare any two aircraft types in combat, to determine which one was really "better". However like I said if you are just considering flight performance with no combat performance or ability, then the P-51 is of course the overall winner.

One could argue that the P-51 was the better fighter and the P-38 was the better weapons system - but if the question was what WWII a/c was the best weapons system I would argue for the P-47 series over the P-38.

absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.

Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.

I'm inlisted in 3 virtual squadrons. And verry active in the dogfight world.

for example:

JG53 johan

so i do know what i'm talking about. i dont fly with only german aircraft.. i like the ally's plane's as wel. IL2 sturmovik with mod's, Rise of flight and so on and on..

III/JG53_Johann said:

absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.

Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.

I'm inlisted in 3 virtual squadrons. And verry active in the dogfight world.

for example:

JG53 johan

so i do know what i'm talking about. i dont fly with only german aircraft.. i like the ally's plane's as wel. IL2 sturmovik with mod's, Rise of flight and so on and on..

Click to expand...

Johan - you cannot base your "hobby" on what it takes to fly a "REAL" aircraft - I don't care how good you think you are, unless you can show us that you had some REAL flight training, you don't have a clue about flying a real high performance aircraft. I've taken little know-it-all putzs' like your self up for an initial flight lesson and watch them chuck their lunch during a simple stall in a Cessna 172, so as a bit of advice please spare us your delusional self-proclaimed flying antics, there are some of us on this site who really do fly and been around all types of aircraft for many years and don't appreciate an "armchair" blowing out a lot of hot air based on what he experienced while playing a "game."

<smile>

Josh64 said:

I totally agree the P-51 had higher performance, that's a given. But other aspects of a fighter can give it an advantage over an aircraft with higher flight performance,

Click to expand...

Totally agree, but concerning P-38 vs P-51 the latter trumps the former in most non-performance aspects as well: simplified pilot training for a single engine aircraft, much lower production and maintenance costs, fuel consumption... I guess the P-38 gives some more tactical options when it comes to carrying ordinance or attacking ground targets (with cannon) but I don't think the empirical evidence shows a significant difference. Another advantage especially over water will be the ability to fly home with a shot-up engine, but it's very debatable if that is so much of a plus in the big picture or more of a psychological relief for the pilot.

Of course the P-38 is available much earlier in the war but once the P-51 is there, it becomes pretty much obsolete as a fighter,

Both aircraft are equally capable of destroying targets that are in front of them. I'd even give the P-38 the slight advantage in that situation, being more stable in yaw. The ability to survive being outnumbered and live to fight another day, has to go to the Mustang, with its greater level and dive speeds, in addition to better situational awareness for the pilot ( visibility ). That gives the Mustang the overall edge.

III/JG53_Johann said:

absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.

Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.

I'm inlisted in 3 virtual squadrons. And verry active in the dogfight world.

for example:

JG53 johan

so i do know what i'm talking about. i dont fly with only german aircraft.. i like the ally's plane's as wel. IL2 sturmovik with mod's, Rise of flight and so on and on..

Click to expand...

Mighty arrogant post, especially in the company that you are in. I have flown flight sim dogfights, and flown real aircraft at Air Combat USA where the airplanes and the flying are real, as are the G's , the high cockpit temperature, etc.

Having flown in both, I can tell you that they are not the same, not even close. It is quite easy to sit in your comfy chair with your joystick in your hand and a soda nearby, you can pause the game to go pee, etc. Get into the cockpit of a Marchetti SF260 to dogfight an Extra 300 when the cockpit temperature is 117 degrees F. G loads of +6 to -4 Gs couple with dehydration and high temperatures are factors that cannot be simulated in a computer. Statistically, the Extra 300 should beat the pants off an SF-260 and 2 times it didn't, 3 times it did.

Statistics, flying in a simulator, performance characteristics all mean nothing once you get in the sky. Often times, it is who sees who first. If the fight gets into a turning fight, it is a matter of who makes the first mistake that the opponent can capitalize on. 99% of real dogfights one on one will be over in less than 2 minutes.

There are folks here that have way more knowledge and experience than I do who will agree that flying a flight sim, no matter how "good" or "realistic" it is cannot give you the real experience.

III/JG53_Johann said:

absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.

Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.

I'm inlisted in 3 virtual squadrons. And verry active in the dogfight world.

for example:

JG53 johan

so i do know what i'm talking about. i dont fly with only german aircraft.. i like the ally's plane's as wel. IL2 sturmovik with mod's, Rise of flight and so on and on..

Click to expand...

You are not flying. You are playing a video game.

Can not compare the two. Sorry...

sorry but dit you ever fly a IL-2 game on full realistic? the flight data is quite realistic. So i have something to compare.

oke, its not the real deal.. but if you think of it logicly.. what i'm telling has a lot of truth in it.

First of all, my post isn't meanth arraogant, its just my opinnion. I want you to know that i do this game for about 10 years. A learn a read a lot about aircraft and just love it. I'm flying in tree squadrons, 1 axis and 2 ally. Just to learn more about flying. And get as close as i can to realisme..

In my oppinion the P38 is a good aircraft. But as a fighter it would not be my personal choice. As a ground attack aircraft its more than suitable.. IF you have an Airbrake.. the P38 without is less good becouse you have to put in a shallow dive.. @ the cost of airspeed and suppress. I like to do aggressive flying when i engage ground targets. pick out target, DIVE, take airspeed.. evade flak drop bombs.. and get the hell out of the range of flak.. BUT if you have a P38 with an air-brake.. you get more options..if you dont the airflow would take out the use of your elevators. And you risk pounding in to the ground with a to steep dive.

Speed is the key in a good low bomb run, to slow.. your a great target.. to fast in a P38 without an airbrake.. (in a dive) its almost sertain death.

I would like to invite all of you thinking i'm talking non realistic business to fly the game.. full realistic.. and ONLINE. no AI.. AI -> easy.. human players.. a hell of a lot realisme -> what i do like..


So think of it what you want, its just my oppinion i look at aircraft at the capacety's of that aircraft.. learned that if you want to be good at flying it online.. is knowing the flawnes of the aircrafts you fly with.. that you dont try somthing stupid.. like for example trying tight turns with a P38 , or trying to dogfight with an aircobra OR trying to outturn a spitfire with an ME109..

and what you say about G loads and temperature.. its absolutely true.. that can not be simulated.. and believe me.. sometimes.. i want to have a time machine.. to have my shot with an actual aircraft.. i do this simulation for my passion about aircraft.. and to test what i have read about the aircraft.. not everything can be simulated. but it is not so that it is easy to take down an other aircraft. you have black outs red outs.. except you dont FEEL it.. you see it.. and thats absolutely true.. Its just the closed way i get back to that period.

OW and if you have a great computer.. and want to test what i just told. I recommend the simulator Rise of Flight.. -> full realism.. on dogfight server.. have a TRACK IR and good joystick with rudders and throttle like i do have.. and experience the closed you can get to WW1 period.

happy new year, and if i offended any of you with my post in this topic it was not meant this way..

Actually, if the US had concentrated it's development and production efforts on only two fighters for ALL uses during the war from 1942 on, with the exception that the F4F and P40 would need to be built until the two all around best were ready, the F4U and P51 would have done quite nicely.

Actually, if the US had concentrated it's development and production efforts on only two fighters for ALL uses during the war from 1942 on, with the exception that the F4F and P40 would need to be built until the two all around best were ready, the F4U and P51 would have done quite nicely.

Click to expand...

agree. But the fact is that war is a business.. you can not oversee the fact that there was a lot of money involved in war. So i can see why there where more than one variant of aircraft available. One variant better than the other.. but it took lives to find out faults in aircraft. And thats the bad side of it.

III/JG53_Johann said:

sorry but dit you ever fly a IL-2 game on full realistic? the flight data is quite realistic. So i have something to compare.

oke, its not the real deal.. but if you think of it logicly.. what i'm telling has a lot of truth in it.

First of all, my post isn't meanth arraogant, its just my opinnion. I want you to know that i do this game for about 10 years. A learn a read a lot about aircraft and just love it. I'm flying in tree squadrons, 1 axis and 2 ally. Just to learn more about flying. And get as close as i can to realisme..
..

Click to expand...

Dude - straight up - I have flown Il-2 (it a friggin game!!!!) and I have flown REAL HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT T-33s, F-4s, Fouga Magister, T-34s, L-29s and L-39s you your game IS NOTrealistic to what one would experience in real flight, and I don't care what type of computer you have and how long you been doing it. Even if you had a full motion sim you're not experiencing the environmental characteristics that you would in a real aircraft. By playing these "games" the designers have provided graphics and animation performance that in theory should show the user what they would experience in the real aircraft, again lacking the environmental characteristics (G loading, the feel of acceleration, smells and changes in temperature, etc., in other worlds all the physical things that you don't experience sitting on your @ss in front of a monitor in your confortable home)

You're delusional, and if I sound insulting its meant to be. You are not a REAL pilot and just because you're in "3 squadrons" doesn't mean jack sh!t to me. The day you can show me a pilot's certificate with some kind of REAL high performance aircraft experience, then you'll have my attention, until then I suggest you cut the crap. As I stated earlier, I would take folks like you who claimed to me to be "Flight Sim Gods" up on a flight in a simple light aircraft and they would puke their last 3 meals out by the time we're 200 feet in the air. So again, stop the crap, you're not a fighter pilot, you're not a pilot, you're an armchair gamer living in a dream world and you're really pissing me off!!!!

To me, having been in a light plane a lot, as a passenger and with about 10 hours solo in a 172, I wonder how pilots in fighters in WW2 were able to see enemy fighters and at the same time fly their own plane and sometimes fly formation. A small plane at any distance at all is really hard to see and some of the fighters really did not have good visibiity out, especially anywhere in the aft 180 degrees. As mentioned once before, I got a ride in an L39 once and during all the aerobatics, it was really hard to keep straight where we were in the sky,(situational awareness) and when I made a few turns in it and flew it through a cloud(my first time to pilot an AC through a cloud) and finally did a couple of aileron rolls, I was not sure where all this was happening. It was a kick in the rear but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

I would have loved Sims when I was first learning to fly.. but i'm reminded that even something as 'reasonably simple' as a level 360 turn takes on a new dimension at SL in a fight for your life and you are flying on the ragged edge of a stall - with one eye on needle and ball, all your senses focused on how the airplane 'feels' and watch your oponent gain on you... and oh yeah taking 3+ G's in the process.. while knowing a mistake a.) gets you shot down, or b.) you slip intao an accelerated stall and die with a snap roll being the last acrobatic manuever of your life.

My time in a 51 gave me enormous respect for the number of ways you can screw up. ALL high performance fighters by their nature are pushing the envelope in one way or another - when you get out of an envelope you either die or deposit a couple of pounds of fecal matter in your shorts

In the limited experience I had with aerobatics it is one thing to perform a manuever like a dnace step - it is quite another to have a three dimensional situational awareness in which you a.) see the other guy and b.) force your bird to react to you without conscious thought.

I flew the LTV simulator against my father with me flying A-7 and F-8 against MiG-17, 19 and 21. He whipped my ass all the time - no matter what I flew - simply because situational awareness and unconscious response was not burned into my by years of experience and actual air combat... you can't teach it by simulation IMHO

"Full realism" is only a euphemism for no computer assist on flying the game. I remember playing Red Baron with "full realism". Hmmm, no G load, no freezing your butt off in the cold European weather with the open cockpit, and when you die, you just restart the game...

The flight sim can do some things, but you are still flying something that is at the mercy of a computer programmer who is programming inputs with no experience flying these old aircraft, full realism or not.

It is good that you are learning about something you are interested in with this, however, you cannot base what a real aircraft can do based on a simulator. There are several people here that have flown the real thing, and they know what these aircraft are capable of.