P-38's performance: legend or myth?

[delcyros]

Not only the sound! Everytime I get a look to this plane I get fascinated by it´s lines. It´s a real beauty.

 

[Treize]

One comment on the AHII P-38- the L is the heaviest of the 3 versions modelled, you have to keep that in mind. The G, with flaps out and using rudder on the turn, can turn with nearly any fighter in the game for a few revolutions before it loses too much E and starts to fall back. J stalls a bit faster, and the L will stall out rather quickly in a flat turn. Gotta keep up E and use the vertical.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen,

all good points brought up here - but common denominator missing here is the ability to fly a twin engine aircraft. It did take an exceptional pilot to make the P-38 perform to its fullest and many of those same pilots mastered the idiosyncricies found in twins. As I stated many times before a twin engine aircraft could be handful for the careless or untrained, especially during an engine out on take off. Those who are novices or untrained may find themselves a black hole just by virtue of operating the aircraft and this situation exists even today.

Some of the top P-38 drivers in the PTO had a lot of multi engine time and usually flew other multi engine aircraft just to stay proficient.

 

[Hunter368]

Gentlemen,

all good points brought up here - but common denominator missing here is the ability to fly a twin engine aircraft. It did take an exceptional pilot to make the P-38 perform to its fullest and many of those same pilots mastered the idiosyncricies found in twins. As I stated many times before a twin engine aircraft could be handful for the careless or untrained, especially during an engine out on take off. Those who are novices or untrained may find themselves a black hole just by virtue of operating the aircraft and this situation exists even today.

Some of the top P-38 drivers in the PTO had a lot of multi engine time and usually flew other multi engine aircraft just to stay proficient.

Exactly my point Joe.

 

[wmaxt]

Hunter is correct - it doesn't sound very glorious, but in fact the war in
Europe and the Pacific was decided when America's avalanche of productivity
came into play. The Luftwaffe died of attrition, for every Allied aircraft they
dispatched, two more filled the air space. And American shipyards built more
ships in one month than Japan built in the 4 years after Pearl. (The Japanese
were already rationing everything before they attacked Pearl Harbor - the
war in China and American embargoes had already tightened the noose).

Still, that takes all the fun out of the discussion now, doesn't it?

Older and sentimental I am now, there is no sound like the P-38, and her size
gives her a grace doing aerobatics that isn't matched by single engine
fighters. I haven't played any simulation games, but I need to so I can
understand a lot of what I am reading here! (Still, for air to air combat,
the P-38 would not be my first choice unless I had a very long distance
mission to fly.)

Good points. And your right they sound cool.

But I think I'd go for the 38 in air to air combat. A lot of pilots who flew it prefered it. A sad point is that the pilots that went to the ETO comment about how badly it was being operated there.

It's also true that a less performing plane with greater numbers did the job but I have to ask was it really worth it?
In the 8th AF the P-51 flew just less than twice the sorties and lost 5 times the aircraft and pilots. P-38, 451 - P-51, 2,201 Source AAF archives via 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers . The P-51 flew 214,000 sorties in the ETO the P-38 flew about 130,000 and ~30,000 of each were in the 9th/15th AF's The P-38 also flew a much higher percentage of G/A sorties than the P-51.
In '44 the P-51 cost ~$51,000 and the P-38 cost ~$97,000 and P-47, ~$85,500plus pilots of course.

Lastly the statistics indicate that the vast majority of kills are made by the top 5-7% of the pilots. Of course thats an entirely different thing that effective escort where a fighters presence is often all thats needed.

Just some thoughts.

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

and there will be plenty more people that have nothing good to say about the aircraft..............

and i'm with Hunter RE the pilot skill, few pilots had the skill to use her.........

Of course you need to take into account the skill of the pilot but then in the engagement of the above quote he was inexperianced enough to forget to switch fuel tanks and later to dive from over 25,000ft into compressability.

You are also right in that an inexperianced pilot in a P-38 was not going to do well. A common complaint in the ETO was pilots from single engine fighters given 20 hours to familurise themselves with the P-38 before combat. Not fair of effective!

A complant of every pilot from the PTO to the ETO is that the P-38 were not being trained or operated properly.

It was more complicated, the early ones had some pretty big issues, it did take a better trained pilot.

wmaxt

 

[Hunter368]

Of course you need to take into account the skill of the pilot but then in the engagement of the above quote he was inexperianced enough to forget to switch fuel tanks and later to dive from over 25,000ft into compressability.

You are also right in that an inexperianced pilot in a P-38 was not going to do well. A common complaint in the ETO was pilots from single engine fighters given 20 hours to familurise themselves with the P-38 before combat. Not fair of effective!

A complant of every pilot from the PTO to the ETO is that the P-38 were not being trained or operated properly.

It was more complicated, the early ones had some pretty big issues, it did take a better trained pilot.

wmaxt

Wmaxt,

I was wondering how long it would take you to throw in your $0.02, lol. I do not disagree with anything you have said in your last two posts.

I will add this to your last post. Often the people who run things forget or simply don't know all that is needed to make something successful. During war training enough "competent" pilots is one of those "small" but vital "things". USA and UK did that very well, Germany and Japan did not. When training thousands of pilots if you can cut their training time in half that can mean the difference between winning and losing a battle or even a war.

Having 5,000 of the best fighter in the world means nothing if you only have 100 competent pilots who are able to fly them. (ask German pilots who flew ME-262)

I will take a second rate fighter (hard to call a P-51 second rate but I think you know what I mean) and have 10,000 of them. Then be able to train 10,000 competent pilots to fly them. My 10,000 P-51 will strafe, bomb and kill in air-air combat your 100 best fighters (including the only 100 pilots who were able to fly them).

Yes I am exaggerating here just to make a point but I hope you get what I mean. No my numbers are not fact they are just to make a point that I hope you see.

I am not saying the P-38 was a great plane or a average one. I am just showing what perhaps USA AF leaders were thinking when they made the P-51 their choice as number 1 fighter.

IMO

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Good points. And your right they sound cool.

But I think I'd go for the 38 in air to air combat. A lot of pilots who flew it prefered it. A sad point is that the pilots that went to the ETO comment about how badly it was being operated there.

It's also true that a less performing plane with greater numbers did the job but I have to ask was it really worth it?
In the 8th AF the P-51 flew just less than twice the sorties and lost 5 times the aircraft and pilots. P-38, 451 - P-51, 2,201 Source AAF archives via 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers . The P-51 flew 214,000 sorties in the ETO the P-38 flew about 130,000 and ~30,000 of each were in the 9th/15th AF's The P-38 also flew a much higher percentage of G/A sorties than the P-51.
In '44 the P-51 cost ~$51,000 and the P-38 cost ~$97,000 and P-47, ~$85,500plus pilots of course.

Lastly the statistics indicate that the vast majority of kills are made by the top 5-7% of the pilots. Of course thats an entirely different thing that effective escort where a fighters presence is often all thats needed.

Just some thoughts.

wmaxt

For some reason P-38 apologists have trouble with statistics. The sortie rates quoted are for the combined ETO and MTO, the loss rates are for the ETO only. The actual losses for the combined ETO and MTO are P-38 - 1758, P-51 – 2520. The loss rate for the P-38 was HIGHER than for the P-51 (1.35% vs 1.18%)

 

[Hunter368]

For some reason P-38 apologists have trouble with statistics. The sortie rates quoted are for the combined ETO and MTO, the loss rates are for the ETO only. The actual losses for the combined ETO and MTO are P-38 - 1758, P-51 – 2520. The loss rate for the P-38 was HIGHER than for the P-51 (1.35% vs 1.18%)

Interesting and welcome, RP.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

In '44 the P-51 cost ~$51,000 and the P-38 cost ~$97,000

well that's what it comes down to, you can buy two P-51s for 1 P-38, the P-51 is able to deal with most fighters sufficiently, they're easier to maintain, easier to fly, have comparable range and, whilst she does have some ground attack ability there were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were better than the P-51 and P-38 in the ground attack role (yes such planes do exist wmaxt), for the ETO the P-38 offers few advantages over any other fighter out there.............

 

[twoeagles]

What I love about this forum is this thread all started with a comment
on P-38 speed as modeled in a PC driven game. Wow! And look where
it took us all. Well, I'm just an old crop duster who went to aeronautical
engineering school, and I just like how the airplane looks. There's artwork
in its lines that did not come from any CADAM applications.

BTW, if you are old enough to remember the fins on the automobiles in the
1950's, they originated with the chief designer at General Motors who also
loved how the P-38 looked, and modeled fins on his car designs in tribute.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well back then aircraft were often influenced by people's preferences as they were often designed for the most part by one man! obviously there were others helping but the designer worked most of it out, and hence sometimes let what they thought looked good creep in.........

 

[Hunter368]

well that's what it comes down to, you can buy two P-51s for 1 P-38, the P-51 is able to deal with most fighters sufficiently, they're easier to maintain, easier to fly, have comparable range and, whilst she does have some ground attack ability there were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were better than the P-51 and P-38 in the ground attack role (yes such planes do exist wmaxt), for the ETO the P-38 offers few advantages over any other fighter out there.............

No really Lanc don't hold back....tell us how you really feel.



(yes I do agree with you BTW)

 

[Chingachgook]

BTW, if you are old enough to remember the fins on the automobiles in the
1950's, they originated with the chief designer at General Motors who also
loved how the P-38 looked, and modeled fins on his car designs in tribute.

Hehe, I am a car designer/Stylist at FoMoCo. We've seen better days and btw it's NOT MY FAULT I TELL YA!

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

After some research and asking of questions of other people, it turns out that the P-38's wing loading was quite high. It's actually quite unthinkable... the P-38 outturning a Spitfire in a flat, sustained turn fight, despite the fact that the flaps give about 15% extra wing area.

I've moved back to the F4U Corsair, as I absolutely honor the Navy pilots. One thing I have to mention however ... my Hog outturns Spitfire Mk.VIII's in flat sustained turns when 20 degrees of flaps are deployed, which, in the game, can only be done under 250 IAS. The flaps don't move outwards like the ones on the P-38, so the Corsair's wing loading remains high. Of course there are other things like aspect ratio, chord, etc. that determine how the air travels around the wing and some people say that the 'bent-wingedness' of the Hog allows it to use its flaps in such a way that it turns tighter than late-mark spits.

I can't seem to find out if this is true or not. I don't feel right flying an overmodeled plane.

 

[denis]

pity one crashed tried to roll to low. was the widow maker a development of the p38

 

[Twitch]

In regard to combat flight sims I recall the free for alls when European Air War was new. One guy would pick a Spitfire and get opponents into turning fights. Of course people had opposing Allied planes like P-38s or P-47s or P-51s that made it unrealistic as well. A P-38 against a Zero or a P-51 versus a 109 should have been more like it.

The point is that getting drawn into your opponents fight will be disasterous in a sim or in real life. P-38s didn't mix it up with Zekes and Oscars turning at 5,000 feet. At 25,000 feet the P-38 was far superior with deciding advantages.

To fight your fight it might mean flying out ten miles using your energy fighter before turning 180 degrees to re-engage in a head on pass. Attempting to turn back quickly in the 2 dimensional will give the Zero the advantage as it is superior in a horizontal fight. Altitude advantage if attained on the egress will give you inertia for the next pass.

There's no absolute formula in a flight sim using a P-38 but adhering to the real world energy fighter concepts will help unless he's flying a P-51 perhaps.