P-38 vs P-51

FLYBOYJ · Dec 24, 2018

XBe02Drvr said:
Have to disagree with you here, Flyboy. How much experience do you have flying single pilot in high performance multi engine planes? When system complexity increases linearly, "brainload" rises exponentially. Increase aircraft speed, and brainload goes exponential again. With complex multis, there are many additional limitations, performance parameters, and system "gotchas" that have to be planned for and processed faster than single engine pilots are used to.
You're right, training is the answer, but let's take a look at that. Here's Dilbert, who's got 120 hours, and has managed to beat a T6 into submission enough to pass a checkride and he's all bright eyed and bushy tailed to fly the hot new Lightning. Now this bird is a new intrusion into the single engine pursuit community, and comes with a bunch of newfangled gewgaws and operational recommendations that look like heresy to the old hands in Training Command. Extended cruising with the engines in oversquare condition? "Good way to burn 'em out quick! Bunch o' ground pounder slipstick artists, never flown a plane in their life"! Keep it on the ground to 140 MPH? "They ain't no runway long enough, and hey, you'll burn out the tires!" VMC? "What's this crap? More slipstick stuff? Bullpucky"! On top of all this, you've got a plane with no two seat trainer version, no instructors with frontline experience in the type, and a budget to meet in both time and money.
Now, a couple months later, Dilbert has managed to wrassle the bird into submission in the allotted 25 hours and he's off to kick some Axis ass in this bird he's established a tentative truce with.
Now, yet another month and a half later, he's joined the mighty Eighth only to discover that they're actually USING the flight manual procedures his instructors labeled bogus and trained out of him. What's more, they're using three different block numbers of aircraft, none of which were what he trained on.
And finally, frozen to the core, with all the various switch twiddling, systems monitoring, and fuel management, how much brainpower does he have available for situational awareness, formation flying, and staying with his leader when the inevitable bounce occurs?
Cheers,
Wes

Sorry Wes - I disagree (but agree) to a point. Yes, a lot more brainload in flying a twin but the arguments shown by the leaders in the ETO was an excuse for not recognizing that there was a severe lack of training with regards to the P-38 and you clearly document my point in later narrative. This combined with not opening the aircraft per the manufacturer's instructions spelled disaster for many low time pilots who never had adequate multi engine training.

Again - look at the PTO experience. Did the tropics give those pilots "more brainpower"?

Shortround6 · Dec 24, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
Let's do the math on the combat radius.

P-39N P-47
a. 9 gal. 17 gal
b. 42 135

a few bad assumptions on the P-47 already.

the chart for take-off and climb includes the warm up and take off so that frees up 17 gallons right from the start.
Then you use the wrong numbers for the climb to 25,000ft. You use the fuel burn for 2350rpm and 35in which is going to take much longer and burn more fuel than using the specified 2550rpm and 42 in power setting. The combat climb used 2700rpm and 54 in for the first 5 minutes and then the 2550rpm/42in setting for the remaining 12 minutes. Fuel burn was 110 gallons. Using the lower power setting for the first 5 minutes might burn more fuel. But nowhere near 135 gallons. Call it another 15 gallons saved?

I am on a tablet right now and it is too hard to switch back and forth between documents and websites.

XBe02Drvr · Dec 24, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
Again - look at the PTO experience. Did the tropics give those pilots "more brainpower"?

Yes, oddly enough, it did.
A) They were much less numbed by the cold, as they weren't forced to fly as high as long in as cold an atmosphere, thus suffering fewer hardware and "software" malfunctions.
B) They didn't spend anywhere near as much time over agressively defended enemy territory.
C) They joined squadrons that had a core of experienced pilots who had transitioned in theater to the P38, and had seen combat against the Japanese from both an inferior and a superior perspective, and who were willing to actively mentor newcomers.
D) The caliber of the opposition was deteriorating more rapidly than in ETO, and the Lightning had longer to "rule the roost" before the newer Army single engine types took over, hence generating more impressive statistics.
Cheers,
Wes

Ivan1GFP · Dec 24, 2018

GrauGeist said:
We should perhaps keep in mind that the P-38 wasn't the only single-seat twin (single-seat meaning pilot only) fighter (or heavy/night fighter) in the war...there was the Whirlwind, KI-45, Bf110, Beaufighter, J1N, P-61, Me410, Mosquito, He219, KI-102, etc. and they all managed.

Hello GrauGeist,
With the exception of the Whirlwind, the pilots of the other aircraft were not really responsible for attacking the enemy if they were bounced. For the most part, all they had to do was keep flying and let the gunners do their work. This may not be the case for some such as Mosquito and He 219, but it wasn't as if they were expected to engage in a dogfight either.
That means that a lot of activity that is required of a single seat fighter pilot simply isn't required.

- Ivan.

GrauGeist · Dec 24, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello GrauGeist,
With the exception of the Whirlwind, the pilots of the other aircraft were not really responsible for attacking the enemy if they were bounced. For the most part, all they had to do was keep flying and let the gunners do their work. This may not be the case for some such as Mosquito and He 219, but it wasn't as if they were expected to engage in a dogfight either.
That means that a lot of activity that is required of a single seat fighter pilot simply isn't required.

- Ivan.

These types did not "just fly along" hoping the rear gunner could take care of the problem (which in most cases, they could not), they would work hard at evading their attacker(s) and often times try and turn the tables (which was far better than just "flying along") and not being as nimble as a single-engine fighter, the pilot had his hands full.

Ivan1GFP · Dec 24, 2018

GrauGeist said:
These types did not "just fly along" hoping the rear gunner could take care of the problem (which in most cases, they could not), they would work hard at evading their attacker(s) and often times try and turn the tables (which was far better than just "flying along") and not being as nimble as a single-engine fighter, the pilot had his hands full.

Hello GrauGeist,
Do you suppose these pilots had to switch to internal tanks and drop external tanks, arm their guns and switch on gunsights before evading or trying to "turn the tables" on the attacker?

- Ivan.

GrauGeist · Dec 24, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello GrauGeist,
Do you suppose these pilots had to switch to internal tanks and drop external tanks, arm their guns and switch on gunsights before evading or trying to "turn the tables" on the attacker?

- Ivan.

You know, I was making a point that the P-38 wasn't the only complex single-seat twin, but if you wish to nit-pik, then sure, I'll play along.

When any one of these twins got bounced, I am sure they had to think fast and go through a mental checklist of what to do in such a situation: What's the props' pitch set at? What's the fuel mixture? How many attackers behind me? Did they have drop tanks? Did they have ordnance? And on and on and on and on...

Your turn.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 24, 2018

XBe02Drvr said:
Yes, oddly enough, it did.
A) They were much less numbed by the cold, as they weren't forced to fly as high as long in as cold an atmosphere, thus suffering fewer hardware and "software" malfunctions.
B) They didn't spend anywhere near as much time over agressively defended enemy territory.
C) They joined squadrons that had a core of experienced pilots who had transitioned in theater to the P38, and had seen combat against the Japanese from both an inferior and a superior perspective, and who were willing to actively mentor newcomers.
D) The caliber of the opposition was deteriorating more rapidly than in ETO, and the Lightning had longer to "rule the roost" before the newer Army single engine types took over, hence generating more impressive statistics.
Cheers,
Wes

A) Wes I agree for the most part, I'd prefer to be hot and fly in shorts and a cut off shirt then to fly with a bulky B3 limiting my movement. As far as mission length, I think the PTO had their share of longe distance missions, but...

B) While I could agree with that, PTO P-38 drivers had the situation of the Pacific Ocean - long expanses of blue waters and horizons seemingly leading to nowhere that could easily swallow up a young pilot who just made the slightest error in navigation. I'd take the aggressively defended territory, especially if the most advanced piece of nav equipment might be a DF.

C) I see training, training and more training, as been pointed out.

D) I could agree but then again the 5th AF brass loved the P-38 in the reciprocal of it's dislike by the 8th AF which gave the P-38 the ability to not only perform a mission that no other aircraft in theater could, but to remain, as you say, "to rule the roost" longer. Even as newer singes were coming on scene in the PTO, the P-38 was still a major player mainly because of it's range and that second engine that came in handy over those long expanses of blue waters!

XBe02Drvr · Dec 24, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
As far as mission length, I think the PTO had their share of lone distances, but...

Of course they did; this is where the P38 shined

FLYBOYJ said:
long expanses of blue waters and horizons seemingly leading to nowhere that could easily swallow up a young pilot who just made the slightest error in navigation. I'd take the aggressively defended territory, especially if the most advanced piece of nav equipment might be a DF.

True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.

FLYBOYJ said:
I could agree but then again the 5th AF brass loved the P-38 in the reciprocal of it's dislike by the 8th AF

Naturally, the Lightning was the answer to Gen Kenny's dreams because it fit the situation, even with its teething problems, while it performed like a cantankerous prima donna in the early days over frozen Europe.

FLYBOYJ said:
I see training, training and more training, as been pointed out.

Ditto, ditto, and ditto again!
Cheers,
Wes

Ivan1GFP · Dec 24, 2018

GrauGeist said:
You know, I was making a point that the P-38 wasn't the only complex single-seat twin, but if you wish to nit-pik, then sure, I'll play along.

When any one of these twins got bounced, I am sure they had to think fast and go through a mental checklist of what to do in such a situation: What's the props' pitch set at? What's the fuel mixture? How many attackers behind me? Did they have drop tanks? Did they have ordnance? And on and on and on and on...

Your turn.

Hello GrauGeist,
Just to make it clear for this response, we are contrasting single pilot twins versus a single seat twin.
WHICH of these activities did the single seat fighter pilot NOT need to do in a similar situation?
The point I was getting at was that there were more things to be done in response to being bounced when flying the single seater.
Are you arguing that the workload was lighter in the same situation?

XBe02Drvr said:
True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.

Hello XBe02Drvr,
The other thing worth noting is that not only is there less of a chance of encountering the enemy in mid ocean, if there is such an encounter, the typical Japanese aircraft cruised at low altitudes so they would not be likely to have any significant altitude advantage.

- Ivan.

GrauGeist · Dec 24, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello GrauGeist,
Just to make it clear for this response, we are contrasting single pilot twins versus a single seat twin.
WHICH of these activities did the single seat fighter pilot NOT need to do in a similar situation?
The point I was getting at was that there were more things to be done in response to being bounced when flying the single seater.
Are you arguing that the workload was lighter in the same situation?

No...the conversation was about the P-38 versus the other listed twins.
Unless we've changed the nature of the discussion all of a sudden.

And as I had said, these heavy fighters all had comparable equipment at the P-38.
All the ones I listed earlier all had dual engine controls, pitch adjustments, fuel mixture adjustments, fuel tank selector switches and (as I should have mentioned earlier) gunsights and weapon arming switches.

They had to react accordingly...even the P-38 carried external ordnance and external tanks and like the P-38, these other pilots had to make a split-second decision to drop any external stores, drop any external tanks (and hopefully remembering to switch to internal fuel supplies), they had to adjust the fuel mixture and pitch, go to wartime power, they had to arm their weapons, turn on the gunsight AND determine what/who is bouncing them and what course of action to take.

XBe02Drvr · Dec 25, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
the typical Japanese aircraft cruised at low altitudes so they would not be likely to have an altitude advantage.

Good point!

P-39 Expert · Dec 25, 2018

Shortround6 said:
a few bad assumptions on the P-47 already.

the chart for take-off and climb includes the warm up and take off so that frees up 17 gallons right from the start. Fine, it frees up 9gal for the P-39 too.
Then you use the wrong numbers for the climb to 25,000ft. You use the fuel burn for 2350rpm and 35in which is going to take much longer and burn more fuel than using the specified 2550rpm and 42 in power setting. The combat climb used 2700rpm and 54 in for the first 5 minutes and then the 2550rpm/42in setting for the remaining 12 minutes. Fuel burn was 110 gallons. Using the lower power setting for the first 5 minutes might burn more fuel. But nowhere near 135 gallons. Call it another 15 gallons saved? Figures used were for a P-47 with drop tank at "ferry" climb. Doubt escort missions used "combat" climb figures. All figures comparable for both planes.

I am on a tablet right now and it is too hard to switch back and forth between documents and websites.

Shortround6 · Dec 25, 2018

"Figures used were for a P-47 with drop tank at "ferry" climb. Doubt escort missions used "combat" climb figures. All figures comparable for both planes. "

Shortround6 said:
climb to 25,000ft at normal rated power (distance covered in climb not included in radius)

But it is not how the figures were computed is it?

I would note also that the figures for the P-47 from that manual were preliminary, the manual even in updated form is from one month after the first P-47s arrive in England and the 200 gallon ferry tank cannot be used as described. It doesn't feed fuel properly at altitudes much above 12,000ft.

It is also a little suspect in that there are only two flight operation charts. One with the 200 gallon tank full and one that says it is for BOTH a clean aircraft or one with an empty 200 gallon tank attached.

I don't know about you but I think that cruise settings/speeds would be a bit different with and without the 200 gallon ferry tank even if it is empty.

XBe02Drvr · Dec 25, 2018

GrauGeist said:
No...the conversation was about the P-38 versus the other listed twins.

I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
Cheers,
Wes

GrauGeist · Dec 25, 2018

XBe02Drvr said:
I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
Cheers,
Wes

The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.
And this is not the case. "Crew served" twin heavy fighters are no different that single-seat twin types in their operational complexity, as the RO/gunner bears no influence on the pilot's operation of the aircraft and I'd like to reinforce the "heavy fighter" aplication to the types I mentioned, as their genisis was based on that particular concept from the 1930's.

Ivan1GFP · Dec 25, 2018

XBe02Drvr said:
I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
Cheers,
Wes

Thank you, XBe02Drvr.

GrauGeist said:
The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.
And this is not the case. "Crew served" twin heavy fighters are no different that single-seat twin types in their operational complexity, as the RO/gunner bears no influence on the pilot's operation of the aircraft and I'd like to reinforce the "heavy fighter" aplication to the types I mentioned, as their genisis was based on that particular concept from the 1930's.

Hello GrauGeist,
My argument was not about complexity of the aircraft or the flight controls.
It was about the splitting of responsibility and expectations in combat among the crew.
Except for the Whirlwind, none of the other twins you listed had any great ability to dogfight with the enemy, so it was a matter of outrunning or evading or hoping the gunners do their job.

If the pilot's is the only pair of eyes in the aircraft that can look for the enemy and the only person who controls ALL the weapons of the aircraft and is expected to maneuver the aircraft to bring those weapons to bear on the enemy, that greatly adds to the workload of flying the aircraft.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr · Dec 25, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
If the pilot's is the only pair of eyes in the aircraft that can look for the enemy and the only person who controls ALL the weapons of the aircraft and is expected to maneuver the aircraft to bring those weapons to bear on the enemy, that greatly adds to the workload of flying the aircraft

Ivan, you sound like a "hands on", rather than an "armchair" aviator.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr · Dec 25, 2018

GrauGeist said:
The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.

The original point was that the P38 was more complex for a pilot than most ARMY FIGHTERS THAT A NEW PILOT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO IN 1942. NOT relative to the entire spectrum of single pilot multi engine aircraft, before and after.
Ivan's point about a single pilot twin engine air superiority fighter having higher pilot workload than crew served types is well taken. I've been involved in training fighter crews in radar interception and ACM, and I can attest to the workload issue. I've flown the F4 radar intercept trainer, and also the F102 full flight and weapons system trainer, which used a radar similar to, but less powerful than, the F4. The 102 was incredibly busy, with a quirky handling airframe, a fussy, attention absorbing radar, and poor visibility from its A-frame canopy. Another pair of eyes in an ACM situation would be worth their weight in fuel and drag. An octopus with eyes in the back of its head is what it would take to do that right. No wonder George Dubya never got fully qualified in the Deuce.
Cheers
Wes

GrauGeist · Dec 26, 2018

XBe02Drvr said:
Ivan, you sound like a "hands on", rather than an "armchair" aviator.
Cheers,
Wes

This conversation has gone well enough without a smartass comment...I would hope it continues that way.

My great Uncle flew the P-38 in the PTO and I was taught to fly (yes, fly) by family friends who were: USAAF, USMC, Luftwaffe and USN combat pilots.

So allow me to rise out of my armchair and suggest you and Ivan go back to the first several posts of this thread and get up to speed about the conversation.

And while we're on the subject of "crew-served" twins. Please explain in detail how the RO/Gunner assisted the pilot in his operations, again?
Did the RO reach over and switch the fuel selectors? Did the RO lean down and adjust the fuel-mixture?
And how did the "crew-served" Defiant fare...did the gunner climb out of the turret and help the pilot at some point?
Being an extra pair of eyes to the rear was one thing, but that's not alot of help up in the office when things are getting hairy.

P-38 vs P-51

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

2nd Lieutenant

Non-Expert

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads