P-38 vs P-51: Full internal fuel dogfighting

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

FLYBOYJ said:
The P-38 can and has out turned "monoplane fighters" for the same reasons you give for the BF 109 vs the Spitfire.
Click to expand...

Given an expert flyer against a novice I guess any fighter could out-turn any opposition fighter.

The implication of the use of the word any is that the P-38 could out-turn all contemporary single engine fighters. Which I very much doubt, given pilots of equal ability.
 

OK
 
I would think there are regimes / envelopes where the P-38 would have an advantage due to little to no adverse yaw / torque with it's unique arrangement. IIRC didn't McGuire have a habit of getting slow with his opponents? I also think it contributed to his demise due to not jettisoning his belly tanks while getting slow.

Cheers,
Biff

PS Switched Lynch with McGuire!
 
Last edited:
Isnt getting into a low and slow turning battle in a P38 throwing away all its advantages of speed and climb, a P38 in that position is very vulnerable to being bounced. Obviously it could be done by experts but really the Sqdn leader should have put anyone who did this on a charge for being stupid.
 

Absolutely!
 
bobbysocks said:
According to this the 38 with boost could hold its own...very good rate of roll and could out turn a 47 and 51B

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf
Click to expand...

A couple of observations - the P-38J tested at 15000 pounds is 2699 pounds under full internal combat load. -------> 85% of full internal GW. If you 'grow' the P-38J GW to Normal full combat load you divide the recorded turn radius of 838 ft by 0.85 ------------>985 ft

The P-51B at 9000 pounds GW is 611 pounds under full internal combat load - the equivalent of flying without 85 gallon tank fuel ----------> 93% of full internal GW. If you then divide the presented turn radius of 883 ft by 0.93 -------> 949 feet, less than the comparably loaded P-38.

Calculated turn radius is directly proportional to Wing Loading (W/S).

Calculated rate of turn is inversely proportional to the Square Root of [k*CLmax/(W/S)]

Second Observation - rate of roll with boosted ailerons for the P-38J was outstanding. That said, the P-38J had a notable 'delayed' reaction between control movement and the Roll initiation (noticeable)., particularly when the 55 gallon LE tanks were full. That comment prevailed with nearly every pilot that flew the P-38J/L at the Patuxent Fighter Conference in October 1944. It is further documented in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand". He also documents the turn performance of the P-38J/L as less than the P-51D - and the P-51B outperforms the P-51D.

Without tweaking CLmax or density or G - the test is skewed (unintentionally?) to favor the P-38J
 
I've wondered a bit about the comments made regarding initiating the roll in the P-38 (delayed action, pulling an engine, etc.). Obviously the engines outside the roll axis of the plane will require more "aileron / leverage" to cause roll, however it must be very noticeable for the amount of comments garnered at the Fighter Conference.

I found this video called, "Flying the P-38 With Chris Fahey", and interestingly enough there are a few cockpit shots showing him turning the yoke and what is to me a rather lethargic response from the plane. Take that last comment with a grain of salt as I have not flown any WW2 type fighters to compare with, only that it seems slow for what appears to be a large amount of deflection as compared to a T-37 or OV-10. The Bronco being fairly slow itself.

Cheers,
Biff

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ZkZu_pbWM
 
Chris IS a very good guy. In fact, I can't think of a POF pilot who isn't. All are friendly and will interact with the public, volunteers, etc, and all show up for volunteer work on many Saturdays. Nobody flies a POF aircraft who doesn't work on it with their own tools. I have seen Chris removing and re-installing an Allison on several occasions when one engine or the other needed some work best done out of the aircraft. It doesn't happen often, but is a major pain when one needs to come out. The Allisons are practically built into the nacelle. Ours is a J-20-model without boosted ailerons, and engine removal is easier than the F and earlier models by an order of magnitude. When I mention the earlier models, I'm thinking of Glacier Girl. The other flying P-38 at Chino is an L-model with boosted ailerons.

Also keep in mind this was an airshow pass at reduced power. He was probably no faster than 180 - 200 mph or very slightly faster. Nobody in the racetrack pattern flies very fast since they circle around and make repeated passes for photo opportunities.

I have worked the last ten POF airshows and they do a racetrack pattern at slow cruise speeds, and also usually have maybe 8 - 15 airplanes in the circle at any one time, with a mix of things like our Tora, Tora, Tora "Val" (BT-15), T-6's dressed up like Zero as movie planes, and other slower aircraft. There are usually 2 circles, an inner one with the slow movers, and an outer one with the faster planes. Sometimes they pick up some speed on the last pass or two before breaking for landing. The passes are all in a line astern manner with maybe a 45° roll into a turn at the runway intersection and no aerobatics. The box is usually active and open only during the airshow itself and these passes are usually in the morning, before the show officially opens.

As far as I know, the only people now authorized to fly the Zero are Steve Hinton, John Maloney, and Kevin Eldridge ... could be mistaken, but that's what I have heard around the museum. That may change going forward, it's Steve's call. The Zero is looking very good since the recent complete, except for engine, overhaul.
 
Last edited:
Our P-38J-20 without boosted ailerons. The power in our "power ailerons is "armstrong" ... however hard you can twist the control wheel. I have seen Steve Hinton in our airshows do a breakaway that is exactly as fast as Kevin Eldridge flying the P-38L with the boosted ailerons.

My supposition is that the slower roll response comes at a higher airspeed since, again, we were in airshow mode, not high-speed combat. Add to that the fact that it was my impression of the relative quickness of initial roll (which I was actually looking for), not a quantitative comparative measurement of same. Also, I doubt they were deliberately trying to see who was quicker, but it was definitely a quicker initial roll than the other fighters doing the breakaway.

Might have also been that Steve flies a lot of big, smooth warbird aerobatics in formation (with the horsemen) and relishes the freedom to be able to horse (excuse the pun) it into a roll without synchronized formation considerations. I didn't ask and really don't anymore for internet posting. Almost every time I have done so and posted it, it generates more misunderstanding than clarification, and takes up more time and effort than it is worth.

But we are lucky as Biff is a member in here and will supply his own words! There are some warbird pilots in our membership, and we know who some of them are ... and there may be more we don't know about yet.
 

FM,

Getting low and slow in ANY airplane makes it vulnerable to a bounce (you are pined between two adversaries, the ground and the shooter, of which both can kill you, and without airspeed your options are few).

If two street fighters are in a brawl and one has a reach advantage, then the second guy will if able probably try to get the first guy on the ground (negate his advantage). However if the second fighter is faster, then he might go toe to toe, and in essence surprise the first fighter. My point is if you have found a corner of the flight envelope that gives you an advantage, then use it when appropriate. McGuire was obviously good enough to figure out the appropriate time to use a given maneuver the majority of the time.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Kryten said:
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the yoke in the P38 rather than a conventional stick?

Is it due to cockpit space?
Click to expand...

From what I understand it was a design standard used by the USAAC when the P-38 was being developed, this because the P-38 was a twin engine aircraft. During the 1980s I attended a Lockheed Management Club meeting (I worked there for 11 years) and Kelly Johnson was the guest speaker. He spoke about many of his designs but when on the subject of the P-38, he mentioned it was his desire to put a stick in the aircraft, something that didn't go over well with the Air Corp officials at the time.
 
Thanks flyboy, I often wondered this as creating enough leverage with a yoke to roll at high speed must have required some kind of gearbox or chain like affair the Spit/Hurricane used, is it correct it was only the later aircraft had assisted ailerons, that and the response delay must have made aiming a seriously skilled affair?
 
biff...how much free play or dead space was there in the stick of the stuff you flew? there would have to be some sort of buffering built in I would think or the plane would be too twitchy...
 
bobbysocks said:
biff...how much free play or dead space was there in the stick of the stuff you flew? there would have to be some sort of buffering built in I would think or the plane would be too twitchy...
Click to expand...

BobbySocks,

The T37 was not as sensitive as the T38. The T38 was more sensitive than the Bronco, and none were as nice as the Eagle (not surprising)!

I should caveat "sensitivity" as well. The cable flight controls, T-37, and OV-10, can get stretch in the cables post rigging. That causes, particularly in the Bronco, each plane to fly different. The Bronco being most notable. I would notice differences in the Eagle but those would be CG factors for the most part.

I have 9 rides in F-16s, 1 in the Hornet, and 1.5k plus in the Eagle. The side stick / fly by wire is the best set up by far. The Hornet was the easiest of the three to fly. That is opine, most likely biased on the Hornet being more similar to the Eagle (my baseline) than the Viper. The Viper cockpit, side stick and canopy being the best without a doubt. Also realize in modern flight controls there is a little dead spot that occurs when the plane is trimmed up. The Thunderbirds fly with full nose down trim, while the Blues have a bungee cord arrangement to pull the stick forward, giving the feel of nose down trim. Allows more precise formation flying with a bit of practice.

In maneuvering harmonization is important with modern fighters, and having auto trim (this is a large spectrum) designed to help the pilot. Full aft stick deflection in the Eagle is about 45lbs, and when you enter a fight trimmed up at high Mach and end up groveling at the floor it's quite handy. I would often run the trim once slow to lighten the stick additionally (helps feel what the plane is telegraphing). The fly by wire jets don't buffet much or any depending on which one, so pilots fly with one eye on the airspeed indicator to know how much energy they have.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
The P-51 would no doubt out-turn the P-38 by a margin once the CG was OK and was slightly faster, but the P-38 could easily outclimb and out accelerate the P-51.
Click to expand...

That depends on which model of each aircraft you're comparing. If you're comparing a P-38L model to a P-51D model, then I agree. However, I doubt any model P-38 could out perform a P-51H in any performance category...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register