P38 vs P47 vs 109 and 190

BLine22 said:

One trait of the Thunderbolt that can't be overlooked is its toughness. It could take a beating. Even though the Lightning had two engines, it had problems with single engine performance due to the remaining engine overheating.

Click to expand...

This may, or may not, depend on the model and the conditions. In the China/Burma/India theater a few of them made it back to base flying over 600 miles on one engine. However flak, and even enemy aircraft were scarce to nonexistent on the return trip so they didn't have to beat up on the remaining engine. Coming back over 300-400 miles in Europe may be different due to the higher desirable cruise speed to get home. A balancing act between speed and blowing up the second engine.
It may also depend on flying technique. Way, way too many pilots were taught the wrong way to cruise the P-38 by army instructors in direct contradiction to both Allison's and Lockheed's instructions/recommendations. Army was teaching high rpm and low boost for far too long.

The P-38 is often a question because it it was one of the most modified fighters in WW II while changing the least on the outside.
Aside from the chin intakes and slightly larger radiators back on the booms a P-38L doesn't look any different than a P-38E.
Yet it has about 33% more internal fuel. About 40% more power ( combat emergency), combat maneuver flaps, diveflaps/brakes and powered ailerons. The last three considerably changing it's combat capability without showing up on most short lists of specifications.
Other planes certainly changed engines and fuel capacity and armament but this was accompanied by changes in outward appearance that make it easy to differentiate the models. Few people confuse the abilities of a 109E and a 109 G or Spitfire I/II with a Spitfire IX/XIV.

The P-38 was also used pretty much world wide (Russian front excepted) and in 1942/43 by pretty much green pilots who had to learn "on the job". It was recognized as being superior to the P-39 and P-40 and was often tasked with protecting those fighters (or at least forcing the enemy aircraft down to the altitudes at which those planes were effective.) It is little wonder that it's combat reputation in the first few years was "spotty".
Often criticized for not being a good escort fighter in Europe (bad cockpit heating for one) it actually only was first used for escorting the the 8th AIr Force 2 months before the first P-51 escort mission into Germany. At the time of the First P-38 escort missions (mid Oct 1943) there were already 7 fighter groups in England using P-47s. Not a lot of time for sorting out the problems encountered in this theater.
The P-51 was the better choice but the P-38 did eventually get the modifications needed.
Put that together with the sometimes inadequate training many P-38 pilots got and it is no wonder that it's "reputation" is all over the map.

Didn't know the Russians didn't have P-38s. I found this on line which surprised me...

The book "Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters" (Red Star Vol 10) by Yefim Gordon contains the following information on a Russian Lightning;

"Several months before the beginning of the La-11's flight tests GK NII VVS obtained an example of the Lockheed P-38L-1-LO Lightning twin-engined fighter. Its evaluation, which was completed in April 1947, showed that, despite the Lightning's high all-up weight (almost twice that of the La-11), its range with drop tanks was inferior to that of the Soviet fighter. Other performance figures, with the exception of the radius of turn and service ceiling, were also lower."

Going to go through my books to see if I can find and earlier date about the Russians at least considering earlier versions

One really has to wonder about the condition of both planes, the fuel used and the size of the drop tanks (if any fitted to the P-38) the comparison was made with as somethings are not adding up.

Weights for LA-11 from wiki, some other sites agree but could still be wrong.

• Empty weight: 2,770 kg (6,107 lb)
• Loaded weight: 3,730 kg (8,223 lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 3,996 kg (8,810 lb)

Weights for P-38L

• Empty weight: 12,800 lb[135] (5,800 kg)
• Loaded weight: 17,500 lb[135] (7,940 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 21,600 lb (9,798 kg)

A P-38L could hit (if not exceed) that 17,500lb mark clean (no external tanks ) if carrying full ammo. So how is the P-38 operating at a bit less than "almost twice that of the La-11".
A pair of 165 gal drop tanks weigh 2155lbs for the fuel and tanks pushing the weight to 19,655lbs which is much more than twice the weight of an LA-11.
Climb rate of a max loaded LA-11 is none to good either.
One source claiming 6.6 minutes to 5000meters. (16,404ft)
This is roughly comparable (or maybe a bit better) than a P-38 at 18,000lbs running 2600rpm and 44in of pressure for the entire climb.
A slightly lighter P-38J could climb to 23,400ft in 6.5 minutes using 3000rpm and 60in pressure (WEP) and that required 100/130 fuel.
I don't have any figures for climb using 3000rpm and 54in pressure at the moment (normal Military rating), perhaps 5 minutes to 15,000ft? But the idea that the heavily loaded LA-11 could outclimb the P-38L unless the P-38 was also carrying a large external load, doesn't seem to make sense. And if the P-38 is carrying external tanks the weight and range comparisons don't make sense.

Even a pair of 75 gallon tanks don't make sense.

Shortround6

A P-38J/L at 17500 pounds climbing at 54" MP and 3000 RPM:

0-5000' 2 minutes and 3200 fpm
10000' 4 minutes and 3100 fpm
15000' 5 minutes and 2900 fpm You were spot on!
25000' 9 minutes and 2900 fpm
35000' 15 minutes and 1000 fpm

at 19400 pounds (I believe that would include 2-165 gallon drop tanks)

0-5000' 2 minutes and 2900 fpm
10000' 4 minutes and 2400 fpm
15000' 7 minutes and 2300 fpm
25000' 11 minutes and 1800 fpm
35000' 20 minutes and 500 fpm

The data comes from the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning:

The time from take off is obviously rounded, the rate of climb I am guessing is what the aircraft can do at that specified altitude.
Finally, the last 5 minutes of the climb to 35000 ' at 19400 pounds would be accomplished at something less than 54" mp for as you know, the time limit for military power is 15 minutes.

Eagledad

Thank you.

Quite frankly I would prefer to read the original report rather than Yefim Gordon's analysis. Soviets had access to ~12 P-38 in different conditions, but only 1 was obtained in flying a condition. It was a P-38L-1 that performed a belly landing in the summer of 1943 (*), during one of the shuttle missions from/to Poltava.

When the bird was fixed it was transferred to 173° regiment of long-range fighter, based in Minsk. When the war finished it was in Poland. In 1947 it was tested at NII VVS and compared to the Yak-9DD (long range variant).

The Yakovlev had better manoeuvrability, but the P-38 was superior in speed, range and ceiling. It was also able to carry an impressive load of rocket and bombs. Apparently the testing could not fully check the aircraft's performance due to lack of 100 octane gasoline.

So, nothing that surprising about the evaluation. If the P-38 belly landed then the propellers would have to be straightened, which would have affected the performance. Same with the fuel, the one available did not allow engine to operate at maximum performance.

Lockheed P-38 "Lightning"
P-38 Lightning авиакомпании Lockheed

(*) Shuttle missions were first organised in 1944.

I doubt they straightened the prop blades. I am sure they were replaced...

Engines had to be worked as well, as a sudden stoppage would have occurred.

Not to put too fine a point on it but by 1947, who would care about the La-11 outside of whoever's head was avoiding Stalin's chopping block? If I were Ivan, I'd be more concerned about how the progress over at North American was coming along on their little swept wing jet fighter and what those guys over at Mikoyan-Gurevich were doing about it.

Also comparing your latest prop ship v. a slightly abused five year old version of a ten year old design hardly sounds like bragging rights to me.