P-38 vs P-47

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

You might want to double check some of the details.
the gist of the story is correct but some of the details leave a bit (or more than bit ) to be desired.

"Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. "

There was no British fuel. There was a common specification for fuel agreed to by the US and the British. This specification and gone through a number of changes during the years leading up to this. One of the changes in specification (in addition to increased amounts of lead) was that increased amounts of certain aromatic compounds could be used in order to increase the supply of 100/130 fuel from the same tonnage of base stock (crude). This change was agreed to in late 1942 or early 1943, samples of fuel were sent to the engine makers in early 1943 and Allison had started work on a new intake manifold to help solve the problem in the spring of 1943. It took until the fall of 1943 to test and finalize the design and get it into production, hundreds of manifolds were also supplied to refit planes already in the field.

Anti-knock lead compounds. Perhaps the lead compound did precipitate out, I don't know, but the real problem was those heavy aromatic compounds. They were anti-knock but they had nothing to do with the lead anti-knock additive.

Allied fuel came from a number of refineries and the exact composition changed from batch to batch even in the same refinery depending on which base stock (crude) they could get and what additives were available. There was a lot of juggling going on to keep the refineries working at as close to full capacity as they could.

Blaming the British for bad fuel seems to pretty common in some P-38 stories but it over looks the fact that the potential problem was known about and being planned for well over 6 months before the P-38 made it's combat debut in Europe escorting B-17s. What the squadron pilots were told may be a completely different thing.
 
So, was the problem the engines, the gasoline or the plane itself? Inadequate intercooling and later too much intercooling indicates design flaws. The P-38 was very big, complicated and expensive for a fighter.
 
Things were evolving quickly. In 1941 (or most of it) there was no joint US/British specification for fuel of any type. By the spring of 1943 they were on the 3rd specification for 100/130 fuel. Each with a different lead limit and a few other changes.
In 1941 the planes coming off the line used engines with 6.44 engine supercharger gears and the B-2 turbo, buy the late summer of 1943 they had gone through 7.48 supercharger gears and the B-13 turbo and were using 8.10 supercharger gears and the B-33 turbo. The basic engines were using stronger crank cases and stronger crankshafts.
The orginal in wing intercoolers were too small even for the end of 1941 engines (they had been designed for an engine giving 1000hp at 25,000ft using 33.4 in MAP, the engines in the production P-38s used engines giving 1150hp at 25,000ft using 39.4 in of MAP. On the P-38Fs the engines were supposed to give 1325hp at 25,000ft using 47in of MAP and the troubles with not enough inter cooling really began.

So who do you blame, fuel was changing every 5-6 months in 1942, power from the engines was going up, new turbos were being developed and the front lines were demanding every P-38 the factory could produce.
 
Sort of a sidebar, not directly related to the 47:

In researching the 15th AF book I found a marvelous letter from Col. Obie Taylor who rebuilt the 14th FG after N Africa. He said that the 38 probably required 50% more training to put a pilot on a par with most single-engine types "but after that he should be nearly unbeatable."

Interesting chap: made ace, contracted polio and was sent home. Spent much of his retirement sailing.

Thing is: after Ploesti fell to the Russians in Aug 44, the 15th's three Lightning groups focused on air-ground with lots of dive bombing & strafing. Two of them (I forget which) only scored 4 victories in the 10 months to VE Day.
 
I have posted this before, but it might be useful to post all of what Taylor said about the P-38

Col Oliver Taylor, commander of the 14th fighter group in Italy during the first half of 1944 had the following to say about the P-38 his group flew: (as recounted in "P-38 Lightning" by Jeff Ethell)

Bad Points:

Ease of Handling: It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more to achieve the level of skill which was necessary to realize the full capability of he ship compared with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 to 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in a 38. (Italics added by me).

Vertical Dives: The 38 could not be controlled in a vertical dive if allowed to build up speed, and that happened awfully damned fast, with speed rapidly building up thereafter until something came apart. The (Axis) knew this well.

Distinctive silhouette: The (Axis), on seeing a lone plane off in the distance would generally leave it be unless he had absolutely nothing else in prospect at the moment. On seeing the unique P-38 silhouette, however, there would be no doubt at all and after it he would go knowing that it would not be a waste of time.

Good Points:

Stability: The plane could be turned into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds…..

Maneuverability: Generally we found that the 38 could out-maneuvered anything, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 feet (5490-9450 meters). Below 18,000 it was sort of a toss-up except that very near the ground we could run (the Axis) right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could.

Range: a 500 mile (800km) distant target was easily reached allowing for 30 to 45 minutes for possible diversions….

Single Engine Flight: The 38 was just as controllable turning into as away from a dead engine.

Engine Configuration: Aside from having another engine to bring you home in case one is lost, the two-engine arrangement provided exceptionally good visibility forward for the pilot and provided protection from flanking enemy fire , especially during low-level strafing runs.

Rugged Construction: The 38 could take a phenomenal amount of beating up and still make it home. One was hit by an ME-109, one wing of the 109 having slashed along the inside of the right boom, carrying away the inside cooler and slicing the horizontal stabilizer/elevator assembly in two. The 109 lost its wing and crashed. The 38 flew 300 miles (480km) on one engine to belly land …at base. (the pilot was Lt Thomas W Smith, 37th squadron; the mission took place on Jan 16, 1944. Something similar happen to Jack Ilfrey a pilot in the 20th Group on May 24, 1944)

Ease of Maintenance: …The general feeling seemed to be that both the P-38 and the Allison engines were very easy to maintain…..

From Study 85 I find that the from August 44 to May of 45

1st Fighter Group 8 Victories
14th Fighter Group 31 Victories
82nd Fighter Group 6 Victories

FYI

Eagledad
 
Single engine flight and ease of maintenance goes against everything I have read.
 
P-39 Expert said:
Single engine flight and ease of maintenance goes against everything I have read.
Click to expand...
Ease of maintenance but twice the work because you have 2 of everything -

The single engine flight refers to flying engine out. The P-38 was very easy to fly on one engine and this was shown by Tony LeVier many times and mentioned by many pilots. The issue was pilots needed the training to achieve this multi engine proficiency, 2-300 hours in twins before jumping into the P-38.
 
They may be referring to loss of an engine at takeoff when heavy on fuel and ammo which would be a whole different animal than tooling along at 12,000 feet with one engine shutdown.
 
pinsog said:
They may be referring to loss of an engine at takeoff when heavy on fuel and ammo which would be a whole different animal than tooling along at 12,000 feet with one engine shutdown.
Click to expand...
Not really - even fully loaded the P-38 was overpowered and it's been mentioned on here before that you actually had to throttle back the "good" engine before you configured for single engine flight.
 
Last edited:

The P-47C/D with water injection and a paddle-bladed prop was much improved, but early P-47Cs were considered slow climbers for the ETO.
 
Clayton Magnet said:
So it was evenly matched against the Spitfire Mk.I as well?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The P-40B/C Tomahawks were sent to the Desert because the over-riding concern over the UK in 1940 was climb and performance above 15000ft for intercepting Luftwaffe bombers. The Tomahawk was poor above 12000ft. So, no, in the UK the Tomahawk was considered not as good as the Spitfire I. But in Africa I'd say it was better due to the different theatre requirements. The P-40B/C was designed for lower level air superiority over the battlefield, which was very useful over the Desert, though the Tomahawk suffered from higher-flying Bf109Fs. The Tomahawk also came with better filters than the Spitfire I, which meant it didn't need the bulky Vokes filter like the Spitfire or Hurricane.
The Spitfire Vb/c Trop was not particularly sprightly at any height, it was actually slower than a Tomahawk IIb below 5000ft. Some sources state that the Spit V Trop was actually the slowest of all Spitfires.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Not really - even fully loaded the P-38 was overpowered and it's been mentioned on here before that you actually had to throttle back the "good" engine before you configured for single engine flight.
Click to expand...
100% agree, but if you were new/untrained and didn't pull back the power on that engine it would roll you over and cause you to crash. Was that inadequate rudder authority causing that?
 
pinsog said:
100% agree, but if you were new/untrained and didn't pull back the power on that engine it would roll you over and cause you to crash. Was that inadequate rudder authority causing that?
Click to expand...
The P-38 propellers rotated in opposite directions but both rotated in the wrong direction. Loss of one engine on takeoff caused the plane to roll into the dead engine (flip over). Had the rotation been reversed the loss of an engine on takeoff would have been less difficult since the torque of the engine would have caused the plane to try to roll into the good engine minimizing the roll and stabilizing the plane. The propellers rotating in the correct direction supposedly caused flutter so they were reversed.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The key is "new/untrained." Once that situation was conquered engine out on take off was almost a non event.

Training, training, training...
Click to expand...
Agree with that as well. My original post was saying maybe engine failure at takeoff was what the other guy was talking about when he said poor single engine performance since the P38 has good single engine performance and handling from everything I have ever read
 
CJ7nvrstk said:
I found this interesting read about problems with the P-38 in the ETO.

https://www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm
Click to expand...
I didn't know the cockpit had so many human factors issues. I am surprised that they didn't do various things to reduce cockpit workload as time went on.

As for the typical altitude seen over the Pacific: How high did the P-38's typically operate at?

The octane and chemical compositions were substantially different and mixed differently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
629
Shortround6
S
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register