Great book! I bought it to use as a source for an Embry-Riddle Term Paper. I would recommend it to anyone.
P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Great book! I bought it to use as a source for an Embry-Riddle Term Paper. I would recommend it to anyone.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great book!
I mention Toliver a lot because he was one of the first people to actually interview former Luftwaffe pilots and not only confirm their exploits, but seperate a lot of fiction from fact.
I mention Toliver a lot because he was one of the first people to actually interview former Luftwaffe pilots and not only confirm their exploits, but seperate a lot of fiction from fact.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I feel sure that Schiffler and Dean appreciate this forum because of the increased sales of AHT. My brother was here in Prescott just before Thanksgiving. He is a pilot and after I showed him my dog eared copy of AHT, he went back to Texas and ordered a copy and is now reading it. I bought mine back in the late nineties and have referred to it many times. It is my go to book about WW2 US fighters.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Mine to, along with Wagner's books on US and German aircraft.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Jeez, another addition to the Christmas list.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
P-51, I don't like the idea of flying a bigger aircraft than my enemy. He'll probably see me before I see him. 
igorlikesp-38
Recruit
- 1
- Jan 31, 2012
Hello everybody!
When dealing with the status of P-38 in the eyes of a german fighter pilot, i found an interesting appraisal for the 38 from the mout of Gen. Steinhoff (176 victories) later commander of JV 44 flying Me 262. I have to honestly say that so far this is the only interview have found so far that mentions apparaises P-38
Interview: Johannes Steinhoff
WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets. [/I]
When dealing with the status of P-38 in the eyes of a german fighter pilot, i found an interesting appraisal for the 38 from the mout of Gen. Steinhoff (176 victories) later commander of JV 44 flying Me 262. I have to honestly say that so far this is the only interview have found so far that mentions apparaises P-38
Interview: Johannes Steinhoff
WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets. [/I]
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Interesting how he speaks of the mission parameters and not the performance of the 51.
drgondog
Major
Mackie was one hell of a pilot. Also he fought P-38s mostly in the Med at altitudes that weren't punishing the Allisons and causing near instant compressibility when it pushed over in a dive...
and in late 1943 he was fighting against pilots who had a year of combat in the P-38 - while in ETO many of the P-38 pilots in fall of 43 were low combat hour/experience pilots.
ETO encounters in summer of 44 were a different ball game for the LW as the late model J's entered the arena as well as the manuever flaps. No easy to exploit weaknesses other than size and visibility enabling a smaller 109/190 pilot a choice to fight or flee by spotting the 38 first.
and in late 1943 he was fighting against pilots who had a year of combat in the P-38 - while in ETO many of the P-38 pilots in fall of 43 were low combat hour/experience pilots.
ETO encounters in summer of 44 were a different ball game for the LW as the late model J's entered the arena as well as the manuever flaps. No easy to exploit weaknesses other than size and visibility enabling a smaller 109/190 pilot a choice to fight or flee by spotting the 38 first.
Dcazz7606
Airman
The U.S. wasn't really interested in another low level fighter so NA aproached the WPB with the idea that the Mustang was also a capable Dive Bomber that could also defend itself unlike the Stuka. The A-36 was produced as a stop gap (but very useful) and avoid cancellation before wizer heads finally recognized it's potential as a fighter.
SamPZLP.7
Airman
In combat experience, both. But in performance P-51
alumacraft
Recruit
- 1
- Mar 6, 2012
My father was a P-51 pilot stationed in Duxford England. He told me they would "jump" other friendly fighters that would happen to be in the area. He said Spitfires, P-47's, and Hurricanes were never a problem, he could whip them all..But, he he said one time a P-38 jumped him and he couldn't shake it no matter what he did....my dad said he will never ever forget the e vision of those monster props on his tail...lol ,,,,so as biased as I am for the P-51......the P-38 had to be a hell of an airplane if dear old dad couldn't shake it with his 51 !!! But he also said he never came across a pilot as skilled as the one in the P38. He said it went on and on for a long time at all altitudes......must have been a lot of fun..
blastermike66
Recruit
sorry- P-38 sucked in a dive, plane and simple- engine problems up to the late stages of the war, great turning ability for a large plane, but the Germans figured out how to tackle the Lightning early on, and kill ratios NEVER rose ,even when the germans were losing the air war in the ETO!! Pilots like Dick Bong and and Thomas Mcguire( RIP) couldn't have scored as high against german pilots in better gunned better armed acft( and BETTER armored )!! you could knock down Japanese fighter with .30 cal even at the late parts of the WAR), especially in the high alt. the P-38s struggled in!!! The P-38 is an excellent long range fighter bomber, but when the P-47N came along, late as it was, i'd probably go with that beast!
funny that, alumacraft- over at History.net debate on the spit versus the P-51, everyone there claimed the Mustang was inferior to the Spitfire, and couldn't take one in a one on one mock combat! amazing ,but considering all acft in the war, It came down to pilot skill and how servicable the acft were!
to the credit of the mustang, it could take manifold pressure boosts and better performing merlin clone engines like its spitfire compatriot( and add some 150 octane fuel) and really kick butt- some of the war time tinkering in the field pushed even the B models and Ds to run at 445-450 mph, and climb at more than the pedestrian 3,320 ft/min ( actual tests of some D models by the AFDU, and Bascombe Downes Brit crowd) showed mustang III/IVs ( the B/C and d model for the U.S.) climbing at 3,475 ft/min and faster! Still the P-38 would outclimb it, but at altitude of 25K to 30 K the mustang was well in its element, and i doubt anything except a hard pushed P-38J or L could match it !!!
the big difference between the Mustang I and the A-36 was DIVE BRAKES. The A-36 was purpose built for ground attack, whereas the Mustang I was simply placed in the role, in addition to fast low to med level recon, and some low to med level intercept duty. early on the Mustang I was actually FASTER than the spitfires in service at 5k to 15 K ( spitfires were flying at around 345 mph to 355 mph, versus the mustang I flying at 370 to 380 mph! funny syscom3 could find this info accurately online...
... and thank GOD for the Brits wanting a "companion" to their much loved Spitfires!!! Don't think an acft would have come along as well suited for the American needs of a high altitude, fast performing fighter like the mustang, if not for the war Ministry looking for more acft !!! The P-47 and P-38 were good acft, but not exactly the match for the Luftwaffe in '43 and '44 like the spit developed into, or the mustang came out as! Arguments about the best U.S. acft have led to some claiming it was the F4U corsair( don't know if it could have handled the higher altitude fighting like the Mustang or even the P-47 in the ETO) and the F6F hellcat- no way it could have handled high altitude combat!!
funny that, alumacraft- over at History.net debate on the spit versus the P-51, everyone there claimed the Mustang was inferior to the Spitfire, and couldn't take one in a one on one mock combat! amazing ,but considering all acft in the war, It came down to pilot skill and how servicable the acft were!
to the credit of the mustang, it could take manifold pressure boosts and better performing merlin clone engines like its spitfire compatriot( and add some 150 octane fuel) and really kick butt- some of the war time tinkering in the field pushed even the B models and Ds to run at 445-450 mph, and climb at more than the pedestrian 3,320 ft/min ( actual tests of some D models by the AFDU, and Bascombe Downes Brit crowd) showed mustang III/IVs ( the B/C and d model for the U.S.) climbing at 3,475 ft/min and faster! Still the P-38 would outclimb it, but at altitude of 25K to 30 K the mustang was well in its element, and i doubt anything except a hard pushed P-38J or L could match it !!!
the big difference between the Mustang I and the A-36 was DIVE BRAKES. The A-36 was purpose built for ground attack, whereas the Mustang I was simply placed in the role, in addition to fast low to med level recon, and some low to med level intercept duty. early on the Mustang I was actually FASTER than the spitfires in service at 5k to 15 K ( spitfires were flying at around 345 mph to 355 mph, versus the mustang I flying at 370 to 380 mph! funny syscom3 could find this info accurately online...
... and thank GOD for the Brits wanting a "companion" to their much loved Spitfires!!! Don't think an acft would have come along as well suited for the American needs of a high altitude, fast performing fighter like the mustang, if not for the war Ministry looking for more acft !!! The P-47 and P-38 were good acft, but not exactly the match for the Luftwaffe in '43 and '44 like the spit developed into, or the mustang came out as! Arguments about the best U.S. acft have led to some claiming it was the F4U corsair( don't know if it could have handled the higher altitude fighting like the Mustang or even the P-47 in the ETO) and the F6F hellcat- no way it could have handled high altitude combat!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Here we go again......
I will make one counter-point to your post, Blaster...........
You almost got the one unknown in the equation - the pilot. You can argue about the relative qualities of the equipment and machines but there is no doubt that the Allies had a concrete advantage over German pilots the last 2 years.
I will make one counter-point to your post, Blaster...........
You almost got the one unknown in the equation - the pilot. You can argue about the relative qualities of the equipment and machines but there is no doubt that the Allies had a concrete advantage over German pilots the last 2 years.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sucked in a dive?!? Before or after the speed brake mods and what model?!? Engine problems? You mean the ETO or PTO?? Look into the history of the 475th FG and see how many "engine problems" they had...
Outta Leftfield
Recruit
- 7
- Jul 30, 2012
American ace and fighter group commander Hub Zemke, who flew the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in combat, provided a comparision of the three fighters that is quoted in Air Command (1997; ed. Jeffery Ethell). Zemke called the P-51 "By far the best air-to-air fighter aircraft of the three below 25,000."
For Zemke, the P-47 was slow to climb, but was better at high altitude, "above 24,000 to 25,000" and "could excede any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very good 'zoom' recovery to altitude." (So, "boom and zoom.")
Zemke acknowledges virtues in the P-38 but calls it "the poorest of the three US Army fighters in the ETO." The problems were: 1) poor engine performance in cold weather; 2) a "steep diving restriction"; 3) too-easy enemy identification; 4) trouble looking downward over the two engines. He did really like it as a gun platform, however, and liked its capacity "to take off" carrying "just about anything."
So, lots of pros and cons overall, but Zemke seems to be ranking them in the order given: 1) P-51, 2) P-47, 3) P-38.
Air Command (a coffee table book I bought on close-out years ago) has many other first-hand comments by guys who actually flew the planes in combat.
On the P-38, one pilot condemns its cold-weather performance, and another calls the engines "a crew chief's nightmare." However, a third describes just barely getting home on a single good engine, then surviving a crash landing in a turnip patch. For him, leaving the smashed up Lightning in that field was "like saying goodbye to a very dear friend.
For Zemke, the P-47 was slow to climb, but was better at high altitude, "above 24,000 to 25,000" and "could excede any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very good 'zoom' recovery to altitude." (So, "boom and zoom.")
Zemke acknowledges virtues in the P-38 but calls it "the poorest of the three US Army fighters in the ETO." The problems were: 1) poor engine performance in cold weather; 2) a "steep diving restriction"; 3) too-easy enemy identification; 4) trouble looking downward over the two engines. He did really like it as a gun platform, however, and liked its capacity "to take off" carrying "just about anything."
So, lots of pros and cons overall, but Zemke seems to be ranking them in the order given: 1) P-51, 2) P-47, 3) P-38.
Air Command (a coffee table book I bought on close-out years ago) has many other first-hand comments by guys who actually flew the planes in combat.
On the P-38, one pilot condemns its cold-weather performance, and another calls the engines "a crew chief's nightmare." However, a third describes just barely getting home on a single good engine, then surviving a crash landing in a turnip patch. For him, leaving the smashed up Lightning in that field was "like saying goodbye to a very dear friend.
drgondog
Major
Joe - the addition of the dive brake/flap on the P-38J-25/L enabled them to control dive and recovery but didn't change the placard allowable dive speed. So, the late model 38s would hit drag divergence and then possibly transonic if pilot clueless enough to try to push it. Still, the P-51/47 and 109 and 190 would accelerate away and keep on going.
The one big problem the dive flap/brake solved was immediate transition into compressibility and stick lock down with entry into compressibility. That in itself made it more manueverable in a dive but it didn't make it dive faster without severe drag rise.
So, no - the P-38L may not have 'sucked' in a dive but it wouldn't stay with a 109/190 or 51/47 in a dive.
The one big problem the dive flap/brake solved was immediate transition into compressibility and stick lock down with entry into compressibility. That in itself made it more manueverable in a dive but it didn't make it dive faster without severe drag rise.
So, no - the P-38L may not have 'sucked' in a dive but it wouldn't stay with a 109/190 or 51/47 in a dive.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
In Robin Olds' bio, he flew both the P38 and P51 in combat in WW2. I got the strong impression he favored the P51. For one thing he liked the cockpit better and the stick over the yoke.
hurricane55
Airman
- 27
- Aug 2, 2012
The Mustang and the Lightning were both very capable fighters, but I believe the Mustang was the better of the two. Lets compare a P51D and a P38L. Both aircraft had adequate armament and about equal speed (Mustang was 6 mph faster), but the P51 could turn tighter. The P51's weight was 7,635 lbs, while the P38's was 12,800 lbs, and the P38 was faster in a climb. However, the Lightning had a slightly higher service ceiling of 44,000 feet vs. the Mustang's 41,900.
Also, this doesn't really count, but despite contrary belief, both the Mustang and the Lightning were used in both the European and Pacific theaters with each plane more common in its respective theater.
After writing down this info, it is hard to tell which fighter reigns supreme. I personally believe the Mustang holds the aforementioned title, but both are still excellent fighters.
Also, this doesn't really count, but despite contrary belief, both the Mustang and the Lightning were used in both the European and Pacific theaters with each plane more common in its respective theater.
After writing down this info, it is hard to tell which fighter reigns supreme. I personally believe the Mustang holds the aforementioned title, but both are still excellent fighters.
drgondog
Major
In real life Robin was always equivocal liking aspects of both very much - and usually summed up his response as "I would fight anything in WWII with either of them".
