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

[syscom3]

I wouldnt say "easy pickings" as the P38's shot down quite a few german fighters themselves.

I would say though that the FW190 was the superior to the P38, with the -109 equal.

Of course if the P38 (with dive brakes) refuses to get into a maneuvering fight and attacks with dive and zoom tactics, then theyre going to be successfull.

 

[wmaxt]

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....

Actually only 451 P-38s were lost to ALL causes by the 8th AF (90% of all aerial encounters with German aircraft). The remainder were lost on Ground Attack missions (something less than 1,300, which also includes losses to all causes including accidents and PR missions). The loss rate was 4 German fighters for every P-38 lost in air to air combat in the ETO. It was 5:1 in the MTO. There are also many recorded instances where the German fighters bypassed bomber groups escorted by P-38s.

Stienhoff made an issue to Galland that the P-38s were superior in speed and maneuverability to his aircraft over Sicily/Sardinia (reference: Stienhoff's book "Messershmitts over Sicily".

This is in spite of the fact that the German pilots had both the experience and numbers up to 5 German fighters for every P-38 fielded in '43 and early '44.

The twin engines had some advantages to, if used properly like they did in the Pacific.

wmaxt

 

[HealzDevo]

As I said consider this, the Germans must have considered the aircraft potentially deadly to pilots to be bothered to caputre it and paint it in their colours so that it could be used for training demonstrations, etc. Both the Mustang and the P-38 Lightning were captured in different marks and used by the Luftwaffe for training. I would suggest that this training could have led to losses in some of the encounters as the enemy pilot may have been aware in his mind of the capabilities of his opponent. It is unknown though, how wide-spread this training may have been in the Luftwaffe. As Sun Tzu said, 'Know Your Enemy' and the Germans certainly made an attempt to carry out this tactical saying.

 

[plan_D]

The fact that Germany captured the Lightning, or the Mustang for that matter, make no point on either aircraft's effectiveness. The Luftwaffe would have taken any oppurtunity to take an Allied or Soviet machine to test it. You never pass up something like that.

Every nation took every oppurtunity to capture the opponents machines.

 

[syscom3]

We did that to the Zero fighter, and learned a lot.

 

[wmaxt]

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.

That sound is reputedly from the props hitting the air from unusual directions and happened when the tails seperated from the aircraft. The really sad thing is that if you ran the engines to idle and went to flat pitch on the props the P-38 would drop out of compressability and accept control again.

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

You know its a tough call. Jack Ilfry thought the P-51 was a better escort fighter, and in fact that was the only place the P-51 shined. Performance wise

P-51D - best climb is at 5,000ft - 3,320ft/min (7.5 min to 20,000ft)
P-38J - best climb at SL - 4,000ft ave climb to 20,000ft - 3,724ft/min I have a P-38L graph that matches this 5.37min to 20,000ft) 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site. An AAF test puts it at 4.91min to 20,000ft, I don't have it so Its just a possible at this time.
P-51D - Top speed - 443mph
P-38L - Top Speed - 442mph (I have a Lockheed graph and have been told there is an AAF test confirming this) however I think until more solid data surfaces (the AAF report) I'll go with 431mph.
P-51D - Acceleration - 2.2mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-38L - Acceleration - 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-51D - range - 2,200mi
P-38L - range - 2,300 mile mission carried off in early '45 (see Smithsonian site)
P-51D - gun package - 6 .50 M2 guns - sited at 250yards
P-38L - gun package - 4 .50 M2 guns, 1 cannon 20mm - effective to 1,000yrds.
P-51D - load - 2,000lbs
P-38L - load - 4,000lbs - 5600lbs reported from the field.
Maneuvering capability. the AAF considered the F model as good from 10,000 to 15,000ft and the P-38F better that the P-40, P-47, P-39, and P-51(the best handling Mustang model) above 15,000ft.The L was reported better, and with maneuvering flaps deployed was reputed to be able to turn with anything, check the John Tilley story where he out turned a Zero at 90mph and 1,000ft. The L model had compressability slats deployable at any speed and could momentarily pop the nose up 20deg at any speed, and could dive after anything. With the aleiron boost could out roll anything above 350mph (I can post a graph) or its available at the 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site.

The P-38 out performs the P-51D in all but top speed, and cruise speed, and cost. Cost was not an issue durring the war, they made ~18,000 P-47s which ranged from $500 less to ~$8,000 less and wasn't up to the job until the D model was introduced.

wmaxt

 

[elmilitaro]

Good info.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

A P-51 could out turn a P-38 at higher speeds. High speed actually increased the Mustang's manuverability, not stiffened it, it flowed with energy. The P-38 was naturally slowed down in a high speed turn because of it's twin engines.

Even the Spit lost some of it's manuverability at high speeds. So if the Mustang stayed fast it could fight very well and in some ways outperform other fighters who were designed for slower dogfighting.

Could the P-38 out roll a FW?

 

[MacArther]

P-38, no question in my mind. As per the "Bong being the top scoring ace of the war" from the post above, I cite the fact that Bong was only the top scoring ace for America. Some of Germany's pilots ran up scores exceeding 300 planes shot down. Anyway, I would take the P-38 because I could line up the guns more readily when aiming through the sites, especially because I didn't have to worry about a given range at which all of my bullets would be hitting the target together. Also, to the point that the P-51 was the cadillac of the skys, that could just as easily be said of the P-40, the P-39, or any other plane, its all personal preference. Besides, why chose a cadi when you have a good Elky SS or Camaro SS. But I digress, the P-38 also excelled in the bombing role, especially whe instituted with the "Droop Snoot" lead bomber. And, once the normal fighters with out the "Snoot" had dropped bombs, they could take out enemy fighters for their friends.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You know its a tough call. Jack Ilfry thought the P-51 was a better escort fighter, and in fact that was the only place the P-51 shined. Performance wise

P-51D - best climb is at 5,000ft - 3,320ft/min (7.5 min to 20,000ft)
P-38J - best climb at SL - 4,000ft ave climb to 20,000ft - 3,724ft/min I have a P-38L graph that matches this 5.37min to 20,000ft) 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site. An AAF test puts it at 4.91min to 20,000ft, I don't have it so Its just a possible at this time.
P-51D - Top speed - 443mph
P-38L - Top Speed - 442mph (I have a Lockheed graph and have been told there is an AAF test confirming this) however I think until more solid data surfaces (the AAF report) I'll go with 431mph.
P-51D - Acceleration - 2.2mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-38L - Acceleration - 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-51D - range - 2,200mi
P-38L - range - 2,300 mile mission carried off in early '45 (see Smithsonian site)
P-51D - gun package - 6 .50 M2 guns - sited at 250yards
P-38L - gun package - 4 .50 M2 guns, 1 cannon 20mm - effective to 1,000yrds.
P-51D - load - 2,000lbs
P-38L - load - 4,000lbs - 5600lbs reported from the field.
Maneuvering capability. the AAF considered the F model as good from 10,000 to 15,000ft and the P-38F better that the P-40, P-47, P-39, and P-51(the best handling Mustang model) above 15,000ft.The L was reported better, and with maneuvering flaps deployed was reputed to be able to turn with anything, check the John Tilley story where he out turned a Zero at 90mph and 1,000ft. The L model had compressability slats deployable at any speed and could momentarily pop the nose up 20deg at any speed, and could dive after anything. With the aleiron boost could out roll anything above 350mph (I can post a graph) or its available at the 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site.

The P-38 out performs the P-51D in all but top speed, and cruise speed, and cost. Cost was not an issue durring the war, they made ~18,000 P-47s which ranged from $500 less to ~$8,000 less and wasn't up to the job until the D model was introduced.

wmaxt

Great data, but just a quibble: the USAAF Inglewood and Dayton tests show the P-51D top climb at 3600 feet/minuteat ~5000 feet and climb to 20,000 feet in around 7 minutes. Doesn't put it ahead of the P-38, but it's more than a 10% improvement.

 

[wmaxt]

Great data, but just a quibble: the USAAF Inglewood and Dayton tests show the P-51D top climb at 3600 feet/minuteat ~5000 feet and climb to 20,000 feet in around 7 minutes. Doesn't put it ahead of the P-38, but it's more than a 10% improvement.

Could you post those tests?

As for the earlier post about the Mustang turning tighter at high speed. Most comparisons I've read place them about even. Two engines is actually an advantage the thrust is spread out over a wider area (2 Props) more efficiently transferring that energy. Also for savvy P-38 pilots throttle differential can enhance the turn, though more effective at slower speeds. Three more things affect the aircraft at high speeds:
1. a tight 360deg turn started at 400mph will often end at ~300 - 325mph.
2. The P-38F was rated as the superior aircraft in turns above 15,000ft even at 10,000ft to 15,000ft and slightly behind below 10,000ft to a P-51A. The extra power at altitude of the Merlin will help the P-51 but the P-38J/L had more power, dive flaps and boosted ailerons added to.
3. The stick (aileron) forces on a P-51 in a 5g turn are 86lbs giving the pilot a lot to overcome. The P-38J-25/L had great stick (wheel) forces even at top speed though aileron forces were very high in earlier models.

wmaxt

 

[JohnnyL]

The P-38 was the better plane. Everywhere else but the northern ETO, it was pretty much everyone's favorite plane. It would also have been the primary plane in the northern ETO had it not been for a few factors:

1. The British ordered a few hundred lightnings that came without the turbosupercharger, and whose engines turned the same way, negating the handling advantage of having two engines. Needless to say, the RAF was less than impressed, and this created a bad first impression for the Lightning, which, by the way, they so-named.

2. The kind of turbosupercharger that was used in the P-38 did not react well to the cold conditions of the northern ETO. Apparently they failed more often there, in part due to this and...

3. Inferior british gasoline. When the first American Lightnings showed up in Britain, the British used an inferior quality of gasoline to that which was used in the U.S. The Allison engines and the turbosupercharger did not like it. This was later rectified, but by then another bad impression had formed.

4. Early models of the P-38 had an inferior cockpit heater. As this was a particularly important piece of equipment in the northern ETO, the Lightning was not the favorite aircraft for long missions. By the time the unit was upgraded, the heavy-duty strategic bombing of the continent was well under way and everyone was using P-51s by then.

The P-38 had superior manuverability characteristics in all areas but roll rate. It was capable of turning inside even the Japanese light-fighters. That plus its ability to climb like a rocket, dive like a lead rake, and the neutral behavior permitted by the contra-rotating props made it a superior plane to just about everything. Factor in the lack of need for convergence, long legs, and the ability to haul nearly as much load as a B-25, and you have a heck of an airplane.

It did require extra training and experience to fly well, due to the twin-engine aspect. Another reason it wasn't as popular. But it really was a better plane.

 

[syscom3]

If I was flying any type of long range mission over the ocean, The P38 would be for me!

 

[davparlr]

A couple of comments.

The Fighter Conference book report on the P-38L (I believe the Army planes were flown by Navy pilots and contractors) was not very complimentary. Comments were mainly against weak directional stability and visibility from the cockpit. One said that it was not a "modern" airplane. They seemed less antagonistic on the P-51 complaining again about directional stability. Of course the only thing Navy pilots hated more than the Japanese pilots were Army pilots (and planes). And the P-38 was more of a direct competitor of the Navy planes. So take that for what it is worth.

More distrubing is the apparent discrepancy of the flight test data generated for the Army TOs for the P-38L and P-51D as found on the spitfireperformance.com site and what is reported above. My reference source is consistant with flight test results. This is what I gleaned from that.

P-38L max airspeed, Max power SL-342 mph, 26K ft-416 mph
P-51D max airspeed, Max power SL-375 mph, 26K ft-442 mph

Someone needs to address this. Specific tail numbers were identified.

One area where I am sure the P-51D held an edge was in reliability. The P-38L, with two engine systems had to have a lower availability rating. Reliability is a force multiplier.

 

[syscom3]

....
One area where I am sure the P-51D held an edge was in reliability. The P-38L, with two engine systems had to have a lower availability rating. Reliability is a force multiplier.

Once the logistics pipelines were running, availability wasnt much of an issue.

 

[davparlr]

Once the logistics pipelines were running, availability wasnt much of an issue.

I am sure that there were times when availability and man hours spent were an issue.

 

[syscom3]

I am sure that there were times when availability and man hours spent were an issue.

That was in 1942 and 1943 when the P51 wasnt around.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

 

[wmaxt]

Heres another aspect that is rarely looked at, According to the web page of 8th AF losses 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers there were 451 P-38s and 2,201 P-51s lost to all causes by the 8th AF over Europe (data credited to the AF Statistical Data Files). The P-38 flew 127,000 sorties over Europe. Of those the 9th AF had 3 P-38 FGs the 474th, 367th and the 370th. The 474th flew from April '44 to April '45 having flown just shy of 14,000 sorties, the others were disbanded in September and October I don't have sortie numbers yet but they would have flown approximately half of the sorties of the 474th. That would leave the 8th AF with ~100,000 sorties.
The P-51 losses of the 8th AF were 2,201 (same source). The P-51 flew 214,000 sorties over Europe. The 9th AF also had some P-51s but I will ignore the added sorties here giving the benefit of the doubt to the Mustang.

To put it simply the P-38 lost 451 aircraft to all causes to 100,000 sorties (loss rate of .0045). The P-51 lost 2,201 aircraft in 214,000 sorties (loss rate of .01). There were more than twice the P-51s lost per sortie as P-38s over Europe by the 8th AF.

Now lets factor in conditions:
1. The P-38 flew escort alone for 2 months, Nov - Dec '44
2. The P-38s teething problems for the first 3-4 months.
3. Pilot and ground crew learning curve. New tactics, mission profiles, location etc.
4. The best German pilots
5. Outnumbered 5:1 by the Germans initially
6. From May '44 on a high percentage of pure G/A missions
7. Close escort period

The P-51 program benefited directly from all that when it came into service.

wmaxt