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

[MacArther]

I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.

 

[syscom3]

I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

 

[Hunter368]

I would like to know the P38's kill ration against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

I agree.

 

[Hunter368]

I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.

Whether (big if) the P-38 "appeared" on paper (in kill to lost record) to be doing a better job or not, that kill to lost record is not the only determining factor whether a plane is to be used or not.

Example: If the P-38 costs twice as much as a P-51 to make and takes twice as long to manufacture and the P-38 achieves a better kill to lost record. Which plane is better? The P-51 does still a outstanding job......mmmmm

So if you could have 1000 P-51 or 500 P-38 what would you do?? I know what the Germans would of perferred to see.....the P-38. I know what the USAF choose to do in WW2. I know what I would of done.

Now do I know for a fact what manufacture times for both planes are? no But it would make sound sense if a plane has two engines and a much larger fuselage then it not only costs twice as much to make but also takes more time to make. But if anyone here can confirm the different times to make both planes then please share that information with us all. The prices for both were already provided (P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000).

Just more to think about.

 

[MacArther]

Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.

 

[Hunter368]

Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.

Yes I think time and cost is a factor (that is why the P-51 was picked). I do agree with you 100% that the P-51 does get too much acclaim, but it did do a good job.

Your top ace never sat in a P-51 true, and he did get almost all his kills in a P-38. But he was up against inferior opponents and planes. Just like the German aces on the Eastern front had it alittle easier with the Russians when compared to those poor Germans who had to fly vs the UK and USAF pilots. Bong killed as many Japanese I would say based on the fact that they were easiers kills (when compared to German pilots) and less b/c he flew a P-38. I am not saying Bong wasn't a good pilot, but do you actually think he would of been able to shoot down 40 Germans in the same amount of time? I think not.

 

[syscom3]

The P38 in the Pacific was a totally different warbird as compared to the P38 in the ETO.

Different strategy, different tactics, different foe, different planes.

 

[Chief]

It's like desiding between a Tiger Tank (P-38L) and a Sherman Tank (P-51D).

Tiger Tank-Heavy Tank
Pros: Heavy armor and armament.
Cons: Slow, broke down often do to heavy weight

Sherman Tank- Heavy Tank
Pros: Faster, lighter, Easier to maintain,
Cons: Thinner armor, lighter armed
Power vs. Preformance

P-38L Lightening Twin Engined Medium Fighter/Bomber (Excellent plane only for the expert pilot)
Pros: Heavy firepower, better turning at slower speeds, holds large fuel load, could hold a large Bomb load, underestimated.
Cons: Problematic, Hard to pilot, Cold/Cramped Cockpit, Hard to pull out of High speed dives, expensive
You get what you pay and train for.

P-51D Mustang single engine Escort Fighter ( Extremely good plane even to beginner pilots)
Pros: Fast, Well armed, holds small bomb load, Easy to Fly, Handles better at faster speeds, easier to maintain (Interchangeable parts do to abundance of aircraft), holds a Large Fuel load, relatively cheap to make.
Cons: Vulnerable behind the cockpit, gun range limited, Capabilties dependant on pilots weight, overestimated. (Don't know the mechanical problems.)
Plane for the Replacement, Pilot is deadly the moment he takes off.

Both planes are extremely good. The P-51D Mustang is a beginners plane (within reason of course. P-38L Lightening is ment for experienced pilots and aces.

It's based on your skills as an aviator. Still both planes contributed emensely and both tend to result in aces. But, it's the heart of an aviator makes the soul of an aircraft deadly. Personally, I say simple is better so I'll take the P-51.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good comparison but I could tell you the P-38 cockpit was far from being cramped.....

 

[JohnnyL]

The location of his usage was not a consideration, it was about airplane performance and combat worthiness... Did the compressability issue only happen in the ETO???

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft that suffered from compressibility? Not by far.

Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???

The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.

Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.

What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???

The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?

Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....U think every Second John could do it??? How bout every cowboy with Captains bars???

The words you're searching for are "your," and "You," I believe.

It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.

There were a select few pilots whose mastery of the -38 was of such a high level that they could make it do what they wanted...

What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?

And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.

and another thing...A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???

You know how many spitfire pilots died because their wings twisted off at high speed due to ailerons that were too powerful? You know how many Bf-109 and A6M2/5 pilots died because they got going too fast in a dive and didn't have the sheer strength to pull out of it? Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.

U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....

I spend my time reading first-hand accounts and technical information. The only real weakness that you've pointed out to me was it's less-than-superior visibility. And that was only in comparison to the two bubble-canopied american fighters.

 

[syscom3]

The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.

The P38 did have some unique visibility problems. I would have to say that the rearward visibility was horrible due to the booms. The P47 and P51 definatley had better visibility (all around)

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.

Some early P51's in the ETO were shot down by mistake simply because it looked like a -109. The P38's shape is very unique and visible even at great distances. All the other aircraft look alike from afar.

The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?

We did have a thread comparing the P38 to the Corsair and it seems they were quite similar. When the P38 is compared to the Hellcat, Mustang and Thunderbolt for PTO condintions ONLY, its the superior of the bunch.

It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.

At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.

What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?

And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.

Agree

Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.

The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.

 

[JohnnyL]

At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.

See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.

The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.

I was unclear in my statement. I meant that the dive brakes were added to the lightning design in early 1943, and mass production of that model began in mid-1943.

And I surmise that U.S. planes had the worst compressibility troubles because we tended to design these big, heavy iron-works designs that would dive like frat boys when the fat chicks walk in.

So far, the only real disadvantages that anyone has pointed out to me are the visibility, and possibly the profile.

 

[JohnnyL]

"...[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first five to ten degrees of bank." -- Franz Steigler, JG 27, 28 victories.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.

P-38 pilots didn't normally use "Differential Throttle Control" because back in that day (the early part of WW2) there were no firmly established procedures for flying twin engine aircraft, not only in combat but under normal operations and the P-38 did not have a "critical engine" because of its propellers turning int he opposite direction. Several PTO pilots picked up on using differential throttle control in combat but for the most part they were far and few, probably the more experienced P-38 drivers, and did not advertise doing this on a grand scale as it was contrary to all normal P-38 combat procedures. If you read some of the information in "Twelve to One" Twelve to One nothing is mentioned about differential throttle control in any area of operation.

 

[lesofprimus]

Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...

U understand???

 

[JohnnyL]

Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...

U understand???

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.

just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms...

I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

 

[syscom3]

Well the P38 DID look cool.

According to Kelly Johnson at a 1977 P38 symposium, here are 15 bad points about the P38. (I will post his 15 good points tomorrow)

1 Engine problems including backfiring that damaged the wing intercooler

2 Wing intercooler was good for 1000HP, but not enough cooling for higher power.

3 Compressibility in the mach .68 to .7 range due to wing shape (among others)

4 Insufficent cockpit heat

5 High aileron forces untill power boost

6 Tail clearance for pilot bail out

7 Engine accesibility in the booms was poor. And the eqmt in the booms was crowded

8 Sun heat effect on Curtiss propellor circuits

9 Turbosupercharger over revving

10 Difficulty in using a turbine hood to get exhaust thrust. The supercharger wouldnt take any back pressure

11 Two different types of engines due to the desire for contra rotating propellors

12 Insufficent rear vision

13 Difficult pilot entrance and exit provisions

14 Hard to build!!!!

15 Sensitivity of the wing fillets ..... difficult to maintain

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

 

[lesofprimus]

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.

U really wanna get in a pissing match with me boy-toy???

I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

Did I hurt ur whittle feelings there??? Awww, Im sorry, why dont u go get a box of tissues... Pussies like u make me sick.... Grow a set of balls and act like a man, not some some sissy-@ss girl whose feelings are soooo very important to the ways of the cyber galaxy....

For the record, I am rude.... And antagonistic, egotisical, short tempered, and above all else, an @sshole.... And Im also a Moderator, which means I have the ability to control this argument... U can either go with the flow here, grow a few extra layers of skin, and watch ur fu*kin mouth to the more senior people around here, or have me slam ur @ss into next Tuesday.... Im not the Moderator u wanna pick a fight with pal....

Trust me...

 

[Chief]

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.



I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

JohnnyL
I understand completely. I'm exactly the same way. However, getting kicked out of here is not the way to do it. You have to learn to pick you fights buddy.

Les can be a jerk, but he does work on this site so he has earned that right. And I'm sorry, but if you don't like. Well than you're gonna have to live with it and if you don't well than don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

Agreed 100%