Some P38 Lightning Information

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

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The final 210 J models, designated P-38J-25-LO, alleviated the compressibility problem through the addition of a set of electrically actuated dive recovery flaps just outboard of the engines on the bottom centerline of the wings. With these improvements, a USAAF pilot reported a dive speed of almost 600 mph (970 km/h), although the indicated air speed was later corrected for compressibility error, and the actual dive speed was lower.[104]Lockheed manufactured over 200 retrofit modification kits to be installed on P-38J-10-LO and J-20-LO already in Europe, but the USAAF C-54 carrying them was shot down by an RAF pilot who mistook the Douglas transport for a German Focke-Wulf Condor.[105] Unfortunately, the loss of the kits came during Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier's four-month morale-boosting tour of P-38 bases. Flying a new Lightning named "Snafuperman", modified to full P-38J-25-LO specifications at Lockheed's modification center near Belfast, LeVier captured the pilots' full attention by routinely performing maneuvers during March 1944 that common Eighth Air Force wisdom held to be suicidal. It proved too little, too late, because the decision had already been made to re-equip with Mustangs.[106]

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced hydraulically boosted ailerons, one of the first times such a system was fitted to a fighter. This significantly improved the Lightning's rate of roll and reduced control forces for the pilot. This production block and the following P-38L model are considered the definitive Lightnings, and Lockheed ramped up production, working with subcontractors across the country to produce hundreds of Lightnings each month.
Click to expand...


The P-38L-5, the most common sub-variant of the P-38L, had a modified cockpit heating system consisting of a plug-socket in the cockpit into which the pilot could plug his heat-suit wire for improved comfort. These Lightnings also received the uprated V-1710-112/113 (F30R/L) engines, and this dramatically lowered the amount of engine failure problems experienced at high altitude so commonly associated with European operations.
Click to expand...

Some believe that the real reason for the engine problems was the wrong kind of fuel in England for the supercharger. The Just like the Mustang switching to the Merlin engine was seriously considered but rejected early on in the war for economic reasons.

Fuel too, was a source of trouble, it is believed by many knowledgeable people that the majority of fuel used in Britain was improperly blended, the anti-knock lead compounds coming out of solution (separating) in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. This could lead to detonation and rapid engine failure, especially at the higher power settings demanded for combat.
Click to expand...


Brit fuel was one of many problems the P38 was experiencing in Europe. Unfortunitly ETO P38 pilots were instructed in the wrong way to fly long distance in the US prior to shipping out. They were trained to use high RPM and low MAP when cruising on combat missions. This was very hard on the engines and not consistent with either Lockheed or Allison technical instructions.

It appears the fuel providied in England for the P38's during the winter of 42/43' was not entirely adequate, as the TEL would condense in the manifolds, particularly during cruise and lead to destructive dentonation.

The improved intercoolers were providing considerably lower manifold tempatures, which allowed TEL condensation during cruise as well as increasing the likelihood of plug fowling.

The P38H had a WEP rating of 1,425bhp, the P38J had a WEP rating of 1600bhp. Exacting maitenance at this WEP rating was critical. Exhaust plugs were to be changed after every flight that WEP was pulled. This was not always done, leading to lead fouling and an increased chance of detonation during subsequent operations at WEP.

Gen.Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force thought the fuel problem enough to sign an order in March 1944 for a special fuel blend just for P38 operations.

Vee for Victory pg143,144
Click to expand...


The Lightning frame, twin booms, tails, counter rotating props, etc. were far and away one of the best gun platform of any plane in WWII.

Despite substandard gas, compressibility and frozen pilots the Lightning was a premier fighter and had defeated the Germans before the Mustang came to the dance. The P-38J-25-LO solved all the major problems and could have finished out the war with no other assistance needed. They were present in sufficient numbers that the P-51 was never needed.


At the crucial time that the Mustang was being considered the Lightning was outnumbered, fighting the best of the best, forced to use the wrong fuel, tactically tied to the bombers and not allowed to attack targets of opportunity and were flown by inadequately trained pilots.


Any … much less all of these challenges, did not occur to the Mustang at any point in the war. The P-51 was given their combat time after the Luftwaffe was beaten, US pilot training was the best with the longest flight time, they had the right fuel and they were not tied to the bombers at the hip. They were born with a silver spoon in their mouths compare to the scrappy Lightning which had to scratch and claw its way to being the best.


How about the orphaned K model which could have been available in the summer of 1943?!??!



Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.

The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted.

In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down.

The true consequences of this pig-headed thinking will never be known. What would have been the impact of such a high performance fighter arriving in force to the forward combat areas in mid 1943? How many lost fighter pilots would have survived thanks to the awe inspiring performance of the P-38K? Again, we can never know these things. What we do know, is that due to bureaucratic myopia, neither the P-38K nor a Merlin powered Lightning ever really had a chance to make an impact upon the air war. For all those pilots who died at the controls of lesser aircraft, the War Production Board bears a measure of responsibility for their fate.



RESOURCES:
Warren M. Bodie, The Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
Lockheed Martin Archives.
Click to expand...
 
The stated range of the P-38 is actually at odds with the actual range regular flown in combat once Lindbergh demonstrated how to fly it properly. Its actual and widely demonstrated combat range was 200 miles further than the Mustang at over 1800 miles. This range was routinely accomplished in the Pacific.

Lightnings flew the longest bomber escort missions of the war (Biak to the DEI oil field refineries).
 
Hairog said:
At the crucial time that the Mustang was being considered the Lightning was outnumbered, fighting the best of the best, forced to use the wrong fuel, tactically tied to the bombers and not allowed to attack targets of opportunity and were flown by inadequately trained pilots.
Click to expand...

Wrong Fuel?

You mean the same fuel as used by the P-47, P-51, B-17, B-24, Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito? Even the P-40.

The problem with the fuel that wasn't solved by changing the fuel?
 
Hairog said:
The stated range of the P-38 is actually at odds with the actual range regular flown in combat once Lindbergh demonstrated how to fly it properly. Its actual and widely demonstrated combat range was 200 miles further than the Mustang at over 1800 miles. This range was routinely accomplished in the Pacific.

Lightnings flew the longest bomber escort missions of the war (Biak to the DEI oil field refineries).
Click to expand...

The way to fly the P-38 properly in heavily contested air space was to cruise at low speed to extend range?
 
The fuel problem was anticipated well before it happened. Some engines/installations were much more susceptible than others.
The Problem came with the increase allowable use of some (not all) aromatic compound as anti-knock agents (not all anti-knock compounds were lead) in order to increase production of 100/130 fuel without major refinery rebuilding. Some of these compounds had different vaporization temperatures than plain gasoline (the lead had darn little to do with the problem)
Radial engines have much shorter intake manifolds from the supercharger exit to the intake valves and generally much less twist/turns than a V-12 manifold so they were less susceptible to the problem. Merlins used an after cooler and not an inter-cooler and it's intake manifold had different twists/turns.
Single stage Allisons rarely operated at the altitudes were the tempertatures were so low as to cause the problem ( and this difference in temperature is why the problem was much rarer in the Med, the CBI and Pacific theaters).
Allison was aware of the change in fuel in the spring of 1943 and working on solutions. it just took them a few months too long to come up with the answer in the form of a new intake manifold which only went into production about the same time as the problem really showed up in large numbers in Europe.
The Problem was compounded by the USAAF instructions on cruising the P-38 which called for high rpm and low boost whichmeant the turbo wasn't heating the air much before it went into the inter-cooler. the engine supercharger didn't heat the air enough to counter the the problem.

Now please note that not all fuel batches were the same. depending on the base stocks available at a particular refinery at a given time more or less of some of the aromatic compounds and more or less lead (up to the max allowable ) were allowed to be used to get the knock rating desired. So yes some batches of fuel had no problems and other batched did. This does not mean the batches that had problems were defective or badly made. Th British and US governments had issued specifications that allowed those percentages of compounds to be used if necessary to get certain base stocks up to the required knock rating. it is like using lead. UP TO 4.6cc per gallon COULD BE USED. Doesn't mean it was always used in every batch.
 
Note that the problem only occurred on P-38s with the core-type intercooler - ie, the J and L.

The core-type intercooler was much more effective than the leading edge intercoolers of earlier versions. This meant that the engines could run at higher power.

The 2 stage Merlin did have intercooling (cooled around the supercharger housing) and aftercooling. Because the intercooler was a liquid:air type, the intake air had a short passage from the supercharger to the intake manifold.

The output from the P-38J/L's turbos had to go from the outlet to the intercooler at the front of the engine, a distance that must be about 5m, and then back to the carburettor, which would be about 2 - 2.5m. Which must have cooled the air even further.
 
Hairog said:
Some believe that the real reason for the engine problems was the wrong kind of fuel in England for the supercharger. The Just like the Mustang switching to the Merlin engine was seriously considered but rejected early on in the war for economic reasons.

Both comments incorrect. The P-38 'engine problems' had a multitude of design issues that were never solved until the Intercooler was moved - along with pre-cooling designs of turbo. NAA wanted to replace Allison with Merlin XX early in 1941 because of real delivery/configuration issues by Allison. NAA was shut down by the BOD of GM (which controlled both Allison and GM).

Despite substandard gas, compressibility and frozen pilots the Lightning was a premier fighter and had defeated the Germans before the Mustang came to the dance.

Need to do a little more research than Bodie. Recommend looking at USAF Study 85 to analyze the victory credits of the P-38 in the ETO. By the end of December (31 days of Operations for P-51B), the 20th and 55th FG combined, were credited with 27 for 9 for 354th FG. During January, February and March, 1944 the combined total for P-38 was 88 and 389 for the P-51B.

There were a multitude of reasons for the poor combat performance at high altitude of the P-38. 1.) Reliability of engine/turbo/intercooler system - which reduced by approximately 50% the actual number of sorties completed due to turnback or loss, b.) Operational issues leading to increased vulnerability in combat, including low cruise speed rivaling the B-17s they were escorting, lack of adequate cockpit management systems to throttle up during an emergency plus terrible cockpit heating, c.) Performance issues such as low critical mach compressibility when dives initiated, low roll rate - all reduced the effectiveness and potential of the P-38 until mid/late 1944.

The P-38J-25-LO solved all the major problems and could have finished out the war with no other assistance needed. They were present in sufficient numbers that the P-51 was never needed.

Grossly misinformed. The J-25 NEVER flew a combat mission with 8th AF, including the 479th FG (Olds/Zemke) through 28 September 1944 when the Group fully transitioned to Mustangs.

At the crucial time that the Mustang was being considered the Lightning was outnumbered, fighting the best of the best, forced to use the wrong fuel, tactically tied to the bombers and not allowed to attack targets of opportunity and were flown by inadequately trained pilots.

Ah, the P-38H/55th FG began operations less than 46 days before the first P-51B mission of the 354th FG. Did the 'best of the best' LW in the West all die in that time? Did the future reinforcements from the East and South into the Reich in Jan-May 1944 leave all their best (~ 60 Squadrons) pilots behind? Both the P-51B and P-38H/J were always outnumbered by LW forces attacking through April and May. In fact, with AAF Shuttle System of Penetration, Target and Withdrawal escort, even the P-47FG were frequently outnumbered depending on where the LW controllers positioned the Day Fighter force.


Any … much less all of these challenges, did not occur to the Mustang at any point in the war. The P-51 was given their combat time after the Luftwaffe was beaten, US pilot training was the best with the longest flight time, they had the right fuel and they were not tied to the bombers at the hip. They were born with a silver spoon in their mouths compare to the scrappy Lightning which had to scratch and claw its way to being the best.

Chuckle...You may note that the Mustang I was in RAF combat ops at the same time as P-38E began in Australia as F-4, was in constant combat against the LW in 1942 and 1943 before the P-51B arrived in UK in September, 1943 - and served throughout the rest of the war. Somehow the silver spoon was left behind. Ditto the Pioneer Mustang Groups of 354th, 357th, 363rd, 4th and 355th that were escorting up to 200-300 bombers each over Berlin and Munich, by the end of March, 1944 the P-38 FGs still Occasionally went as far as Berlin, but were largely relegated to deep Penetration support or intermediate target support beyond P-47D range but short of P-51B range.

Bodie is such a fanboy for P-38/Kelsey that he apologizes for the stupidity of AAF Planners and Combat leaders in the ETO that weighed the P-38 for six months and pulled the plug in favor of the P-51B/C/D.

You may note that none of his primary sources regarding the 'coulda, mighta, shoulda' apologists for P-38 performance do NOT include, Kepner, Doolittle, Spaatz or any bomb group CO/crew that was in the actual business of defeating the LW Day Fighter Arm deep into Germany.

I don't know how many 8th AF vets that were B-17/B-24 crew in ETO but if you do, ask them questions about preferences.


How about the orphaned K model which could have been available in the summer of 1943?!??!
Click to expand...

How about the K? the larger diameter props and gear ratio gave it better climb performance as demonstrated in the early 1944 tests at Eglin, but if you read (and understand) the flight report you will note that a.) the climb advantage was SL to 10K over the P-38J it was compared to, and b.) The P-38J it was compared to was 600 pounds Heavier. You may also notice that top speed at FTH was about the same -------> No real advantage for ETO ops in support of 8th AF but it would have been fine for 9th AF tactical ops.

On your next post, be aware that you will be confronted, on this forum, perhaps the most knowledgeable folks on combined WWII/LW/AAF/Commonwealth aircraft, performance and history. Bring your A game..
 
Hairog said:
The stated range of the P-38 is actually at odds with the actual range regular flown in combat once Lindbergh demonstrated how to fly it properly. Its actual and widely demonstrated combat range was 200 miles further than the Mustang at over 1800 miles. This range was routinely accomplished in the Pacific.

Lightnings flew the longest bomber escort missions of the war (Biak to the DEI oil field refineries).
Click to expand...

Flying over open ocean with no enemy fighters or flak to contend with you can afford to fly slow and conserve fuel. Not possible in the ETO.

Research a mission profile for the 8th AF and get back to me on whether you think the P-38 could fly 1,800 miles in that environment.
 
In the Pacific, with Lindberg's help (I just got a copy of his Wartime Journals) they came up with the low altitude high boost approach to saving fuel. The probability of encountering opposition over the broad ocean areas while en-route to the target area was quite small. As you say, that approach is hard to do that in the ETO.

But after the liberation of France in 1944 they switched to that approach. P-47's could take off from their French airfields, loaded with ordnance, and stay very low and slow until they got to their air to ground combat area.
 
MIflyer said:
In the Pacific, with Lindberg's help (I just got a copy of his Wartime Journals) they came up with the low altitude high boost approach to saving fuel. The probability of encountering opposition over the broad ocean areas while en-route to the target area was quite small. As you say, that approach is hard to do that in the ETO.

But after the liberation of France in 1944 they switched to that approach. P-47's could take off from their French airfields, loaded with ordnance, and stay very low and slow until they got to their air to ground combat area.
Click to expand...

Point well taken, I should have clarified that I was thinking more of the December '43 - June '44 time frame.
 
Hairog likes to make wild ass claims concerning his favorite aircraft, the P-38 Lightning. For example, he once tried to convince everyone that the Lightning shot the best axis pilots out of the sky early on in the war, only to leave the dregs for the "clean-up crew" (his cute little pet name for the Mustang and Hellcat dynamic duo).

Apparently during the war the JAAF and IJN could only muster a mere 350 competent pilots from the start of 1943, as this is roughly the total number of claims made by Lightning pilots in the PTO before the introduction of the Hellcat in late August 1943. Our very own eagledad arrived at this figure using USAF Study 85, as well as books written about the Lightning by well-respected authors Jerry Scutts and John Stanaway.

Anyone have the total number of Lightning aerial victory claims for the ETO, before the Mustang started combat ops there? From what I've been reading here and elsewhere, it couldn't possibly be greater than what transpired during those nine short months in the Pacific. From the sources I have it was credited with 497 victories for the ENTIRE time that it served in Europe, about a 1/10 of what the Mustang went on to be officially awarded there (4,239). Now that's a lot of crappy German pilots! :D
 
The P-38 did little in Europe at first because they barely got started in the U.K. and then were sent to the Med.
I have read of quite a few RAF/RCAF aircrew experiences lately and two of them said the same thing, both concerning June 1944, "I saw P-38's today and that's the first time ever."
 
Miflyer,

If I counted correctly. the P-38's of the 55th FG was credited with 24 kills and the 20th FG 2 kills before the P-51's of the 354th FG scored their first kills on 12/16/43. Since I counted the kills by hand. corrections will be gladly accepted.

For the time frame Oct 43 through the end of Dec 43, I counted:
20th FG, 2
55th FG 27,
354th FG 8.
Please note that the 20th FG only operated the month of December (though one of the squadrons operated as a 4th squadron of the 55th the end of November), and the 354th only about 3 weeks in December, though their first credit was awarded on 12/16

Edit: First Mission of 354th FG as Bomber support for the 8th AF was 12/5/43.
(Mighty Eighth War Diary, Roger Freeman p 148)

Source Study 85.

Eagledad
 
Last edited:
eagledad said:
Miflyer,

If I counted correctly. the P-38's of the 55th FG was credited with 24 kills and the 20th FG 2 kills before the P-51's of the 354th FG scored their first kills on 12/16/43. Since I counted the kills by hand. corrections will be gladly accepted.

For the time frame Oct 43 through the end of Dec 43, I counted:
20th FG, 2
55th FG 27,
354th FG 8.
Please note that the 20th FG only operated the month of December (though one of the squadrons operated as a 4th squadron of the 55th the end of November), and the 354th only about 3 weeks in December, though their first credit was awarded on 12/16

Source Study 85.

Eagledad
Click to expand...

Thanks eagledad, impressive as always.
 
GrauGeist said:
Bill, don't forget that International Harvester also had a contract to manufacture the 20mm.

Some other U.S. aircraft that had the 20mm were:
A-26B (Douglas, not Martin B-26)
A-20G
YB-40
XP-50
B-17 (field mod.) like the 5 or so B-17Gs of the 97th BG, 15th AF that packed a 20mm in the tail for the "tail end charlie" position. The 99th BG also had a B-17G that was packing a 20mm in the tail position.
There were also nose mounted field mods, like the B-17F with the 385th BG, but the recoil was tearing apart the nose. Another B-17 in the PTO had a field mod. 20mm installed.
One of our forum members (Seesul) discovered a 20mm cannon at a B-17G crash site and it can be seen here: B-17G with a 20 mm cannon onboard!
Click to expand...
About 1000 early P-39s (P-400 and P-39D1) had the 20mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
E
Information on Bf 109 G6 WNr. 18874
Replies
3
Views
1K
Elsass48
E
R
Plane information
Replies
8
Views
1K
Skyediamonds
Skyediamonds
W
Information on Bf-109E-1
Replies
5
Views
1K
warbirdfinder
W
Epiccow400
National museum of us air force Bf 109G-10 information?
Replies
6
Views
1K
bobbysocks
bobbysocks
Back