...searching for the best USAAF interceptor...

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-38's my favorite plane. I know I read of concerns about it being a complicated plane to fly and maintain.

It was only complicated becuase at the time the USAAF gave little consideration to in-depth twin engine aircraft training.

 

[wmaxt]

I disagree over the ground attack - those liquid-cooled engines were a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than air-cooled ones. And the P-38 was expensive compared with single-engined planes, so you really didn't want to lose them (ground attack was expensive in plane losses):

P-51D = $54,000
P-47D = $85,000
P-38L = $115,000

(source: USAF Museum World War II aircraft )

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Tony the actual numbers are
Plane - 1943 ------ 1944 ----- 1945
P-38 --$105,567 - $97,1547 - $95,150
P-47 --$104,258 - $85,958 -- $83,001
P-51 --$58,824 -- $51,572 -- $50,985

Source AAF Statistical Digest

As you can see it wasn't much higher than the P-47 but is was more expensive and more difficult to maintain, Post war it was an obvious economy move to get rid of the P-38 for the P-51 and its lack of turbo ducting.

If you surprised a P-38 and got into a furball at 350-400mph the P-38 was at a dissadvantage because it performed turns poorly in that regime. It was a very good/exceptional energy fighter. Its props were 3 bladed and the power separated into two sources allowing each blade, prop, engine to get the most out of them. It also has to be remembered that advanced flight techniques and long range (300gal) drop tanks that made the P-38 so potent in the Pacific were rarely/never used in Europe. Another thing that must be kept in context is the model in question, pre-J P-38s had serious issues with cold, fuel/engines, compresability and other related problems. Other than the cold all WWII fighters went through the same problems esp the P-47. The P-51Bs were called "experimental" by the 8th AF commanders until the fuel/aircraft problems were ironed out, about March '44. The 474th FG actually went to AAF brass to keep their P-38s over P-47/P-51s, and a number of pilots like Art Heiden flew both and think the P-38L was a better fighting plane than the P-51s.

wmaxt

 

[Jank]

I do not take issue with the production costs advanced by Wmaxt. I would point out, however, that there are additional costs (both in time and money)involved here such as maintenance and pilot training. There seems to be a general consensus that the complicated nature or difficulty in mastering was really due to insufficient training.

By analogy, I suppose one could say that surgery is difficult to master compared to carpentry (just as mastering the P-38 is more difficult than mastering the P-51) after which it would undoubtedly be pointed pointed out that with the proper training, surgery wouldn't be difficult.

In the end, though, casting the issue in those terms does not make mastery the P-38 less burdensome or difficult on the USAAF or the pilots flying her.

 

[wmaxt]

Wmaxt said, "The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference."

The "real difference" was the rate of occurrence and it was a big difference for the pre-"J" models. The problems with the P-38, prior to their being ironed out, were quite common. A P-38 mechanic once told me that it was easier to keep a B-17 up and running than a P-38. I didn't ask him which P-38 model he was referring to but I assume it was a pre-"J" model.

It probably was pre J. However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s. The difference was that it was never made public like the P-38. Remember the P-38 went there first and those problems were anylized and solutions implimented into other aircraft as appropriate.

Incidents where the P-51's lost their tail, while it did happen, were actually a rare occurrence. Obviously, loosing tails during combat manuevers are stories that spread quickly, far and wide among pilots. If anything, losing a tail is a story with dramatic, sensational value unlike a mechnical problem that grounds a P-38 or causes it to turn back during a mission.

Not that rare early on and in testing, they were beefed up considerably by the D model which required a redesign anyway to accomodate the bubble canopy. My comment was not to say they were common but that the P-51 had developemental issues as well, it took two years of development before the B/C P-51s were ready. The abort rate shown above is no joke, when the engine quits in a P-38 he feathers it and goes home the P-51 pilot becomes dead or a guest. The P-38s problems were in front of everybody not just over the Mojave desert.

What issues are you referring to with the P-47? I am aware that there were serious mechanical teething problems with the "M" model but no other problems that would be considered significant with the P-47's. It was really considered a rock of reliability.

Yes it was after it got to combat. Its been awhile since I reviewed the P-47 data but in addition they had compressability issues (The N model had slats like the P-38s). They had a rash of turbo/engine issues early on. I belive it had a two year plus development period to. Range and climb wern't solved until the D-25 in mid '44 even then.

The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51 and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice.

True enough. I'm not putting down either aircraft, just pointing out they needed development for the jobs they were to do. The difference is that those problems were public with the P-38 so people tend to think it was the only one. The F-22 has 8 years development before production. The P-38 with its issues still did the job assigned to it and gave the others time/information to be better prepared when they got there.

wmaxt

 

[Twitch]

Tha P-38 could never handle 4 20 mms in the nose. The 49th had a P-38 with 6 .50s and when Dickk Bong flew it he agreed with Ralph Wandrey and Paul Murphey that it was way too nose heavy.

Art Heiden wasn't even an ace so the P-38 sure didn't help him prove his statement. It's pretty hard to say it was a better fighting plane than the P-51 when you're winscreen was fogged up due to inadequate defrosting and you're fighting a missfire in on engine that can't shake its problem with cold moisture ingestion as your fingers grown numb from the lack of heat.

As great as the P-38 was in the Pacific it was puke over Europe-North Afrika at altitude. It boils down to the fact that the guys in the ETO didn't want a plane like the P-38. If the Japanese philosophy of aircraft design and construction was on par with the German's the P-38 wouldn't have excelled over there either.

 

[Jank]

"However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s."

I find that very hard to believe. Can you source that for me?

"Its been awhile since I reviewed the P-47 data but in addition they had compressability issues (The N model had slats like the P-38s)."

All planes had various compressibility issues. That's a function of aerodynamics. The Thunderbolt's issues, which were not substantially greater than many other aircraft, were worked out long before the advent of the "N" model as the "D" model had tackled them.

We're talking here about problems that keep you grounded or cause you to turn back or make you unable to perform under mission and or life threatening circumstances. I still disagree with you about the incidence of tail losses. It is a very sensational thing and got a lot more and far reaching press than it deserved which probably makes it seem like it was a bigger problem. It was corrected fairly quickly after which it was rare event indeed. The P-38 had very serious problems on the other hand that persisted until the middle of 1943 with the "J" model.

"Range and climb wern't solved until the D-25 in mid '44 even then."

Huh? Those aren't the same sort of "problems" that we are talking about here. That's just a performance limitation of an earlier version of the aircraft operating perfectly well. All aircraft go through performance enhancing modifications that solve climb, speed, etc. "problems" as you put it. The P-47M solved the speed "problem" of the Thunderbolt as well I suppose. It's just too bad the paddle blade didn't make it on the Jug sooner. A climb rate at S/L of 3,200fpm from a 14,500lb single engined airplane is impressive when you consider the P-51's was less than 3,500fpm.

 

[syscom3]

....
As great as the P-38 was in the Pacific it was puke over Europe-North Afrika at altitude. It boils down to the fact that the guys in the ETO didn't want a plane like the P-38. If the Japanese philosophy of aircraft design and construction was on par with the German's the P-38 wouldn't have excelled over there either.....

Ive never heard of the cold weather issues in the MTO.

Come to think of it, Ive never heard of that problem either, with the 11th AF -38's flying in Alaska.

 

[Erich]

sadly this multi-paged thread is going down like other comparitive threads, P-38 against anything the US had in it's aerial arsenal, so let it be will ya !!

yes it got cold up at 20-25,000 in the Med, think winter and you can definately add on more degrees. Simply put the P-38 could not take on the later GErman Luftwaffe single engine jobs, the Stang and the Jug could. Yeah I know I am going to hear a tirade from the pro--P38 clan any minute now .......

 

[syscom3]

....imply put the P-38 could not take on the later GErman Luftwaffe single engine jobs, the Stang and the Jug could. Yeah I know I am going to hear a tirade from the pro--P38 clan any minute now .......

I agree with you. the -38 was becoming dated by the end of 1944 (at least in Europe).

 

[Jank]

Erich, I am a big Thunderbolt fan (surprise, surprise) and push its virtues whenever I can but am a bit puzzled by your last statement.

Why was the P-47D with water injection and paddle prop better able to tangle with the late war waffle jobs (Luftwaffe) better than the P-38J's and L's?

 

[Erich]

who was still flying them in late 44 ? L's ? One 9th AF unit the 474th fg. The Stang had the range the quickness the manuverability, better optics and comfortability in the cockpit. this is coming from 55th fg vets and 20th fg vets

The PTO is another matter altogether

I remember Hub Zemke going from the P-47 upon his move to a P-38 in the 8th AF 479th and then finally the Stang until his accident in the clouds. Give me the Thunderbolt any day was his comment to me back in 91 and 92

 

[FLYBOYJ]

who was still flying them in late 44 ? L's ? One 9th AF unit the 474th fg.

Was it they or another unit who didn't want to give up their P-38s? I thought I read this somewhere....

 

[lesofprimus]

"However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s."

I find that very hard to believe. Can you source that for me?

Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth describes many many missions while assigned the B's and C's, and every single sortie he was a part of, several planes aborted for various reasons, which is why they would launch 4 backup/replacement planes along with the mission... They knew several would turn around....

And as for the P-51D model, those damn engines went through spark plugs faster than they could keep em supplied.... Alot of guys had to land at alternative airfields because of the fouling problem, and wait a day or 2 for more to be supplied....

For this reason, and many others, I am not a big fan of the Mustang...

 

[pbfoot]

Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth describes many many missions while assigned the B's and C's, and every single sortie he was a part of, several planes aborted for various reasons, which is why they would launch 4 backup/replacement planes along with the mission... They knew several would turn around....

And as for the P-51D model, those damn engines went through spark plugs faster than they could keep em supplied.... Alot of guys had to land at alternative airfields because of the fouling problem, and wait a day or 2 for more to be supplied....

For this reason, and many others, I am not a big fan of the Mustang...

I had the opportunity to listen to this guy who was a fitter or aero engine and he worked on Allison and stated that if the engine was worked hard you dropped the oil and the magnetic drain plug was covered with iron filings and he stated the Merlin would take a more of a beating without what he called self destruction

 

[syscom3]

Anyway you look at it, the P38 was superior to the P51 in the bomber interceptor role.

 

[Tony Williams]

I think that the P-38 would have been improved by a cockpit/armament layout like that of the later DH Hornet or Vampire - with the cockpit in the nose, the gun actions and magazines behind, and the gun barrels running underneath and to each side of the cockpit. That would have provided better visibility for the pilot, taken the gun muzzles out of his sight line so he wouldn't be blinded by muzzle flash at night, put the ammo supply over the CG so the trim didn't change as it was used up, and (for the same reason) made it easier to fit different armaments.

My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jank]

Thanks Les. That's a horrible rate.

Agreed that the P-38 was better than the P-51. I'm still trying to understand Erich's point that the P-47 could take on the later Luftwaffe planes better than the P-38.

Why?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.

 

[syscom3]

.....My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.

The fact it was the only fighter able to engage any fighters 1600 miles from base and defeat them makes it the premier long range fighter of WW2

 

[Jank]

Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?

The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S.

Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?