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.



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.





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?!??!



 
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).
 

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?
 

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.
 

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..
 

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.
 

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!
 
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:

Thanks eagledad, impressive as always.
 
About 1000 early P-39s (P-400 and P-39D1) had the 20mm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread