The P-38J and L in the European theater.

[Conslaw]

I'm guessing the P-38s didn't escort the B-29s for a couple of reasons. First the P-38 did not excel in the escort role in Europe. Secondly, you could fit more P-51s on Iwo Jima than you could P-38s. Each P-51 only used up half the gas and half the maintenance hours as the P-38. That's very important at the end of a long supply line.

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

ANYTHING can be shot down from ambush, even the best fighter built by anyone ever. Let's not forget that 140 Me 262's were shot down by USAAF piston fighters at a time when almost no P-38's were in the theater. The Me-262's were shot down by P-51's and P-47's ... since they were THERE.

About 200 Me 262's were operational at any one time, maximum. They shot down from 300 to 450 enemy planes, depending on who you believe (probably in the middle). There is no record of sorties flown as far as I know.

The P-38 shot down 3,668 enemy planes in real life during wartime.

Which one was the more effective fighter during the war?

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, I am sure glad that the Luftwaffe didn't comprise of only Me262s!

However, there were nearly 40,000 Bf109s produced. Do you suppose that a P-38 may have encountered one of those at some point, over Europe? Then there were roughly 20,000 Fw190's...which may have encountered a P-38 at some point...

The P-38 was good for turning hard to the right, because of the torque and "P-factor", not so well to the left. They also had a tendancy to buffet hard at the stall thresh hold and in the hands of an experienced pilot, had a chance at making it through a turning fight. But a turning fight was not the P-38's forte. It was it's ability to hit fast and hard.

Not sure where you're going with the "real life during wartime" thing...was there an event in an alternate universe that I'm not aware of?

 

[Denniss]

Smells like the BoB problem of the Bf 110, just at a higher performace level.

 

[Shortround6]

Smells like the BoB problem of the Bf 110, just at a higher performace level.

Not quite.

The P-38 did have a few things going for it, Especially at the higher altitudes. It usually had the best acceleration and climb of the American fighters. Since ALL fighters loose speed during maneuvers and the higher the G load the maneuver the more speed lost the P-38 lost less speed during the maneuver and gained it back quicker once level flight (or something close) was returned to.
Depending on month/year and exact models of aircraft compared the P-38 could hold it's own in speed vs the majority of enemy fighters it came up against and depending on altitude could often out climb them. I believe the Bf 110 could NOT out climb the Hurricane during the BoB?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-38 was good for turning hard to the right, because of the torque and "P-factor", not so well to the left.

From Wiki;

"The Lockheed design incorporated tricycle undercarriage and a bubble canopy, and featured two 1,000-hp (746 kW) turbo-supercharged 12-cylinder Allison V-1710 engines fitted with counter-rotating propellers to eliminate the effect of engine torque, with the superchargers positioned behind the engines, with the exhaust side of the units exposed along the dorsal surfaces of the booms. Counter-rotation was achieved by the use of "handed" engines, which meant that the crankshaft of each engine turned in the opposite direction of its counterpart.

The YPs were substantially redesigned and differed greatly in detail from the hand-built XP-38. They were lighter and included changes in engine fit, and the propeller rotation was reversed, with the blades spinning outward (away) from the cockpit at the top of their arc rather than inward as before. This improved the aircraft's stability as a gunnery platform."

AFAIK The P-38 had no P factor when both props were turning and no critical engine during engine out situations (or both engines were critical depending the way you look at it).

 

[Bad-Karma]

The question that we never really got answered

Can a Good TWIN ENGINE fighter match a Good SINGLE ENGINE fighter ??????

The closest we got was the P-38L. Sadly we never got to see it against quality opposition
No doubt it was devastating when it had a clear performance advantage against its opposition (A6M)
But how would it go against a Dora with the same performance numbers? With the boosted ailerons
could the P38 now dogfight? Or is it a case with physics that something so large and has such a large
target area is always going to be more venerable against single engine fighters?

Just another point. I'm sure I read somewhere that the late model P38 had a range as far as 2500 miles
Is this true? If so why didn't they use it to escort the long range B29's

Id be curious to know how a F7F would fare vs a single engine fighter.

 

[GrauGeist]

Joe, I was para-quoting Lt. G. "Pat" Brown, 15th AF USAAF, from his memoirs. He entered the MTO (and later ETO) with the P-38 from '43 onward and saw quite a bit of action.

I thought that, instead of entering my own opinion on the subject, I would use the opinion of someone who did. I know that my Uncle flew the P-38 in the PTO for the duration, but he did not talk much about the battles.

Anyway, here is Mr. Brown's opinion in his own words:

Just a short statement concerning the "hows and whys" we flew as we did on combat missions: First of all we flew in flights of four airplanes. Secondly' two flights would weave back and forth with each other all the way to the target and back home. A pilot's blind spot is directly behind him. Therefore we weaved back and forth. By doing this each flight was watching the other flight's tail.

When attacked from the rear, which is the typical attack method because the attacker hopes he is not detected. The entire flight does a 180 degree turn toward the attacker in order to get into firing position. If the attacker climbs back up or proceeds on down, the flight makes another 180 degree turn back on course to escort the bombers or whatever else they were doing. If the attacker does not leave by one of the methods described, the fight starts and who knows what will go on from there.

The airplane that has the altitude has a definite advantage in combat. He can trade altitude for airspeed, or airspeed for altitude. He can dive down on the lower airplane and gain airspeed, then after making the attack and firing, he can use the excess airspeed to regain altitude, or he has the option of continuing the dive on down below after his attack. In either instance, the attacked airplane cannot pursue the attack airplane very well because of the lack of airspeed to keep up the chase.

If the enemy makes a head-on pass toward the flight, both groups have a head-on shot at each other. If you need to protect the bombers you are escorting, just continue on course. If you want to engage the attacker, make a 180 degree turn, and pursue him if he does not have too much airspeed to outrun you.

If a flight was jumped by the enemy from two directions, the flight would split up into two elements, and each element would take on one of the two attacker groups. If the engagement broke off or never really developed, the two elements would rejoin as a flight and proceed on as usual.

A single engine airplane will normally attempt to escape with a left turn. Because of torque and P-factor, it can make a sharper turn to the left than to the right. In a P-38 if we were trying to escape an enemy single engine fighter, we would normally make a turn to the right, with counter rotating props we could turn equally well in both directions, but remember the enemy single engine fighter didn't turn quite as well to the right as to the left. That is why we would turn right.

In extremely tight turns, the stall speed increases dramatically. Many times a single engine airplane would spin in from making too tight a turn. However, the P-38 when stalled in a tight turn would not spin, but just buffet (shake) a little. Thus we could stay right on the ragged edge without fear of a stall/spin accident.

Another combat situation was called a Lufberry Circle. This is like a dog chasing his tail, two airplanes chasing each other in a tight circle. The first plane to attempt to break off the situation normally had to reverse his direction of flight, and in so doing had to pass through the line of fire of the other plane. The single engine fighter pilot normally wanted to fly this maneuver to the left, and the P-38 to the right, for reasons previously mentioned.

Other than the tactics mentioned above, it was just a dog-eat-dog affair. Each trving to outflv or outsmart the other, there was a lot of luck as well as lots of skill involved in aerial combat. Above all else, we must remember that the German Air Force was always waiting for our arrival. Its impossible to get 48 - 72 bombers, and a like number of fighters to a target many hundreds of miles away without being detected. The enemy always started out with the advantage. They were above us and thus had the airspeed/altitude advantage, and they were also fighting over their territory, close to their home base. They also did not have to sweat out the fuel situation as we did. We had to get home after everything else was accomplished.

Lt. Brown seen here in his P-38:

 

[Shortround6]

The question that we never really got answered

Can a Good TWIN ENGINE fighter match a Good SINGLE ENGINE fighter ??????

The closest we got was the P-38L. Sadly we never got to see it against quality opposition
No doubt it was devastating when it had a clear performance advantage against its opposition (A6M)
But how would it go against a Dora with the same performance numbers? With the boosted ailerons
could the P38 now dogfight? Or is it a case with physics that something so large and has such a large
target area is always going to be more venerable against single engine fighters?

we are back to categorizing fighters as single engine and twin engine again

P-38 had 327 sq ft of wing while a P-47 had 300sq ft, an F4U had 314 and an F6F had 334 sq ft. The engine nacelles and center pod on the P-38 are actually pretty skinny compared to the P-47 and F6F fuselages, so the 'target' area isn't that far off. Besides, if you are worried about big a target your plane is you are already in deeeep doo-doo.
The twins big disadvantage should be roll response with the engines being a number of feet out from the center of the fuselage, BUT individual planes all had different roll responses depending aileron type, size/shape/placement, deflection and 'gearing in the system'. Speed and altitude could change roll response too. P-38 with power boosted ailerons could out roll many single engine fighters. Without the power boost, nowhere near as many.

Just another point. I'm sure I read somewhere that the late model P38 had a range as far as 2500 miles
Is this true? If so why didn't they use it to escort the long range B29's

AN escort should be able to return from a mission and not be a suicide escort. That is not just fly with the bombers and then have the pilot bailout/crash land because he can't make it back.

That 2500mile figure is for ferrying the aircraft from base to base using a pair of 300 gallon drop tanks. They often left the ammo boxes empty when ferrying aircraft to lighten the load. With 600 gallons outside and only 410 gallons inside (and the inside tanks were used for warm-up, taxi and take-off because the fuel feed was more reliable than the drop tank fuel feed) it was quite possible to get the P-38 (and some other planes with big drop tanks) further into enemy territory than they could get out once the tanks were dropped. Ferry speeds and altitudes were often much different than escort speeds and altitudes.
For combat use the P-38 often used 165 gallon drop tanks.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe, I was para-quoting Lt. G. "Pat" Brown, 15th AF USAAF, from his memoirs. He entered the MTO (and later ETO) with the P-38 from '43 onward and saw quite a bit of action.

I thought that, instead of entering my own opinion on the subject, I would use the opinion of someone who did. I know that my Uncle flew the P-38 in the PTO for the duration, but he did not talk much about the battles.

Anyway, here is Mr. Brown's opinion in his own words:

"A single engine airplane will normally attempt to escape with a left turn. Because of torque and P-factor, it can make a sharper turn to the left than to the right. In a P-38 if we were trying to escape an enemy single engine fighter, we would normally make a turn to the right, with counter rotating props we could turn equally well in both directions, but remember the enemy single engine fighter didn't turn quite as well to the right as to the left. That is why we would turn right".

I think he was speaking relative to single engine fighters

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

Where I was going with the real wartime thing is that the early P-38's were flown into combat with 4 major faults including no pilot training. Unsurprisingly, they didn't fare too well. By the time the P-51's got there, almost everyone HAD some combat experience and the faults in the P-38 were worked out or rapidly getting that way.

My point is that had the same inexperienced pilots been thrown into the fray in P-51's, they'd have had some training issues and some teething problems, too. When the P-38 faults were worked out, it was an outstanding fighter with a very good record in the MTO and PTO once the guys knew how to fly and fight it and once they had combat experience, and it was good enough to be the mount of our two top aces.

In fact, if you LOOK at the top 10 aces from the U.S.A., Number 1, 2, and 8 flew P-38's. Number 3 flew a Hellcat. Numbers 4, 6, and 7 flew a P-47. Numbers 5 and 10 flew a Corsair and number 9 flew a Wildcat. Note that there were two planes with 3 aces each in the top 10; the P-38 and P-47. The P-51 doesn't show up in this list. It is no reflection on the P-51, which got to the fray rather late.

My entire point is simple. The P-38 was a good fighter that had a less than wonderful start at WWII combat due to several factors combined. Later in it's service life, it was effective and there were experienced people flying it, so it would have been effective anywhere under those circumstances.

I never said it was the best fighter out there; but I say it was a good one. If you don't think so, that's OK. We don't have to agree for things to be OK but you might keep in mind that it was the mount of the two top US aces, so it ain't all bad. There are plenty of P-38 fans out there, and I'm one of them. As it happens the only true dud we had in MY mind is the Buffalo ... and there are plenty of Buffalo fans out there. No doubt they love the Finns, but the US experience with more than 9 times the number of Buffalos was abysmal. One record of astounding success with 10% of the Buffalos and another record of abysmal failure with 90% of them. Go figure. Maybe we should have shipped the entuire build to the Finns! They might have won the war with the Buffalo ...

 

[Koopernic]

The question that we never really got answered

Can a Good TWIN ENGINE fighter match a Good SINGLE ENGINE fighter ??????

Definitely yes.

Turning circle is primarily a matter of: 1 wing loading, 2 power to weight ratio.

If a twin matches a single in these parameters it can turn with it, climb with it, accelerate with. Its likely the twin can exceed them due to its arrangement advantages but the tendency to cram in equipment can destroy that.

Two provisos though:

The engine power must be good at altitude and on the P-38 it was not only good but better, if you bank in to a turn and start pulling g the increase in drag from induced drag from the extra wing lift will slow the aircraft down and height will be lost.

One must also consider the coefficient of lift. Most wings are about the same but full span leading edge slats like on the Me 109 or 262 add about 40% extra lift so we should be talking of lift loading (wing loading x coefficient of lift max ie CLmax). Note however that slated wings have poor lift to drag ratios when the slats are out.

And of course the less drag then the more power available for turning, climbing, acceleration and speed. That's why the Mustang was so good because its laminar profile wings had so little drag at high speed.


Adolf Galland said of the P-38 something like "they could out turn us but by the time they'd banked we were long gone"

And here is the problem. Because the P-38 pilot is only a man he could not deflect the big ailerons enough to get maximum roll rate. There were likely other factors such as the inertia of the outlying engines and the so called windmill effect (for the same tip speed you get a faster roll with a smaller span)

However when power assisted ailerons were added the roll rate of the P-38L was one of the highest of any aircraft in the war. I believe the P-80 ended up with the system.

Lockheed had also thickened the inboard wing sections to carry sufficient fuel: this lead to a severe mach tuck problem. Solved in several steps and finally dive recovery flaps were added to pitch the wing up and little while slowing it down. Mustang hardly needed them.

 

[tomo pauk]

The inboard wing section of the P-38 was not that overly thick - 16% thickness to chord ratio. The problem was that nacelles and central pod created sort of a venturi tube, that increased speed of the air moving above and under then inboard wing section. More from the flight manual of the P-38: link.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok, can we dispense with the slat nonsense for good now?

These are full span slats

These are NOT

another chart

partial span slats are only going to affect the proportion of wing they cover. If they cover 1/2 the span then they are only going to affect the "lift"over that part of the span.

However that is actually not correct. What the slats do is keep that area of wing from stalling at high angles of attack and the wing generates the lift at the high angle of attack. SO what you can have is the outer portions of the wing generating lift with the slats out while the inner portion of the wing is stalled and generating NO lift.

This may be be better than the whole wing stalling but it certainly doesn't mean that the Bf 109 was generating 40% more lift just above stall.

What it did do was maintain air flow over the ailerons so lateral control was maintained, many aircraft loosing aileron control and lateral control at speeds a bit above stalling speed. It also worked as sort of a warning system allowing an experienced pilot to operate on the edge of the stall for maximum lift. Some other aircraft had warning signals (like buffeting) and some did not, the ones without could go into a stall and spin with little or no warning so 'green' pilots often flew wider turns/maneuvers than the plane was capable of to avoid the stall.

Also please notice the rise in drag as the angle of attack increases, this is one reason dog fights quickly descended in altitude. Pulling any "extra" turning ability the slats may offer for very long increases the drag sharply which will decrease the airspeed of the aircraft quickly.

edit, sorry forgot drag chart.

Granted these are generic charts and individual airfoils/wings will vary some.

 

[drgondog]

Definitely yes.

Turning circle is primarily a matter of: 1 wing loading, 2 power to weight ratio.

If a twin matches a single in these parameters it can turn with it, climb with it, accelerate with. Its likely the twin can exceed them due to its arrangement advantages but the tendency to cram in equipment can destroy that.

Limit G Load plus CLmax are also equally important..
Two provisos though:

The engine power must be good at altitude and on the P-38 it was not only good but better, if you bank in to a turn and start pulling g the increase in drag from induced drag from the extra wing lift will slow the aircraft down and height will be lost.

Or until you reach CLmax in the turn faster than your opponent

One must also consider the coefficient of lift. Most wings are about the same but full span leading edge slats like on the Me 109 or 262 add about 40% extra lift so we should be talking of lift loading (wing loading x coefficient of lift max ie CLmax). Note however that slated wings have poor lift to drag ratios when the slats are out.

109 had outer span LE Slats to primarily give it roll authority for low speeds but it was a happy addition to middle speed turn capability - but there was nowhere near 40% increase in lift with the slats deployed. When viewed from the front the 'theoretical lift profile looks like an near elliptical distribution, span wise, tapering to zero at the tip. The LE slat on the 109 fronted the wing at the point where perhaps 10% of the total lift was generated. The 'inboard 60% Lift distribution was little aided and tended to stall out before the ailerons were affected.

The primary benefits were twofold: First eliminate the induced drag for all normal flight by designing a wing without twist, and Second - enabling aileron authority at low speed via the LE slats in front of the aileron deploying only when the adverse pressure gradient of stall conditions enabled the LE slats to 'open.

There isn't any question that the overall wing CLmax increased - but not by much inboard of the Slats.

And of course the less drag then the more power available for turning, climbing, acceleration and speed. That's why the Mustang was so good because its laminar profile wings had so little drag at high speed.

The other great benefit to the NAA/NACA 45-100 airfoil is the gradual velocity gradient from leading edge to ~ 40% t/C where conventional airfoils compressed the velocity gradient to max t/c of ~ 25%. This is the reason that the Mustang had a delayed onset of drag rise due to compressibility increase compared to P-38 and F4U. Increasing chord and reducing t/c like the P-47 and Spit also had the benefit of delayed drag rise but both experienced change of CMac (negative Node Down Pitching Moment) as the compressibility bubble transformed into full blown shock wave. The P-38 never solved the problem as the dive flap better enabled control of velocity in the dive - but it still had .68M Placard compared to .75M for both the 51 and the 47.


Adolf Galland said of the P-38 something like "they could out turn us but by the time they'd banked we were long gone"

And here is the problem. Because the P-38 pilot is only a man he could not deflect the big ailerons enough to get maximum roll rate. There were likely other factors such as the inertia of the outlying engines and the so called windmill effect (for the same tip speed you get a faster roll with a smaller span)

However when power assisted ailerons were added the roll rate of the P-38L was one of the highest of any aircraft in the war. I believe the P-80 ended up with the system.

Galland was still correct simply because the rolling inertia of the big span and outboard mass of engines and fuel prevented instantaneous response to the augmented ailerons. If the 109 turned and dove, he had a great chance of avoiding a fight with to P-38 on its tail - ditto in a Reverse for the same reasons.

Lockheed had also thickened the inboard wing sections to carry sufficient fuel: this lead to a severe mach tuck problem. Solved in several steps and finally dive recovery flaps were added to pitch the wing up and little while slowing it down. Mustang hardly needed them.

NAA did experiment with a very similar one but never installed in production - but the P-47d (-30?)did install for reduced pitch down effect near .75 to .8M.

I don't recall any change of main airfoil from the NACA23016 or tip airfoil section. The change that did occur was to design and install a wing filet which did reduce buffeting.

 

[drgondog]

Hi Graugeist,

Where I was going with the real wartime thing is that the early P-38's were flown into combat with 4 major faults including no pilot training. Unsurprisingly, they didn't fare too well. By the time the P-51's got there, almost everyone HAD some combat experience and the faults in the P-38 were worked out or rapidly getting that way.

My point is that had the same inexperienced pilots been thrown into the fray in P-51's, they'd have had some training issues and some teething problems, too.

Greg - None of the 354, 357 or 363FG pilots had any flight time in the P-51B and few were combat vets before arriving in ETO and the 354th only had a full compliment of P-51B-1s days before their first mission. Although the 4th and 355th FG pilots had combat experience in other fighters they learned to fly and fight on the way to the target... and the Mustang had plenty of teething issues

When the P-38 faults were worked out, it was an outstanding fighter with a very good record in the MTO and PTO once the guys knew how to fly and fight it and once they had combat experience, and it was good enough to be the mount of our two top aces.

In fact, if you LOOK at the top 10 aces from the U.S.A., Number 1, 2, and 8 flew P-38's. Number 3 flew a Hellcat. Numbers 4, 6, and 7 flew a P-47. Numbers 5 and 10 flew a Corsair and number 9 flew a Wildcat. Note that there were two planes with 3 aces each in the top 10; the P-38 and P-47. The P-51 doesn't show up in this list. It is no reflection on the P-51, which got to the fray rather late.

Hmm, where did you insert Preddy or Meyer on that list with 26.83 and 26 (2 in Korea)? And did you have Hanson as top USMC ace with 25 at number 5 (Boyington only had 24)? Foss had 26 so must be your F4F at 9 so Hanson has to be 10 behind him.

Wing Commander Lance Wade was a Texan (Still USA) that flew with RAF and had 25 - all in Hurricanes and Spits,

Only the top P-47 aces (except for Kearby) flew against the LW. The PTO aces flew against Japanese aircraft that were only superior (exception Raiden, Ki 84/100 which were few in number) if they chose to maneuver at low/medium airspeeds with them and had far fewer good fighter pilots as adversaries as 1943 progressed in the PTO.

My entire point is simple. The P-38 was a good fighter that had a less than wonderful start at WWII combat due to several factors combined. Later in it's service life, it was effective and there were experienced people flying it, so it would have been effective anywhere under those circumstances.

I never said it was the best fighter out there; but I say it was a good one. If you don't think so, that's OK. We don't have to agree for things to be OK but you might keep in mind that it was the mount of the two top US aces, so it ain't all bad. There are plenty of P-38 fans out there, and I'm one of them. As it happens the only true dud we had in MY mind is the Buffalo ... and there are plenty of Buffalo fans out there. No doubt they love the Finns, but the US experience with more than 9 times the number of Buffalos was abysmal. One record of astounding success with 10% of the Buffalos and another record of abysmal failure with 90% of them. Go figure. Maybe we should have shipped the entuire build to the Finns! They might have won the war with the Buffalo ...

The P-38 was a formidable adversary when flown by a good fighter pilot against any conventional fighter. The good ones knew their limitations (just as all aircraft possess them).

Having said that, the drive to replace the P-38s with P-47s and P-51s began as 1944 drew to a close, with exception of recon, and by July 1945 had virtually disappeared from most of the famous combat units it started with. Some remained in CBI and some remained in the Philippines but the assault on Japan was a mirror image of ETO - with the Mustang doing most of the long range escort.

 

[GrauGeist]

...In fact, if you LOOK at the top 10 aces from the U.S.A., Number 1, 2, and 8 flew P-38's. Number 3 flew a Hellcat. Numbers 4, 6, and 7 flew a P-47. Numbers 5 and 10 flew a Corsair and number 9 flew a Wildcat. Note that there were two planes with 3 aces each in the top 10; the P-38 and P-47. The P-51 doesn't show up in this list. It is no reflection on the P-51, which got to the fray rather late...

Good point, let's have a look at the top American aces:

Maj. Richard I. Bong, USAAF (40) P-38 - PTO
Maj. Thomas B. McGuire, USAAF (38) P-38 - PTO
Capt. David McCampbell, USN (34) F6F - PTO
Maj. Francis S. Gabreski, USAAF (28) P-47 - ETO
Maj. Robert S. Johnson, USAAF (27) P-47 - ETO
Col. Charles H. MacDonald, USAAF (27) P-38 - PTO
Maj. George E. Preddy, USAAF (26) P-40/P-51 - PTO/ETO
Maj. Joseph J. Foss, USMC (26) F4F/F4U - PTO
1st Lt. Robert M. Hanson, USMC (25) F4U - PTO
W/Cmdr. Lance C. Wade, RAF (25) Hurricane/Spitfire - ETO
Maj. Gregory Boyington, (24) P-40/F4U - PTO
Lt. Col. John C. Meyer, (24) P-47/P-51 - ETO
Lt. Cecil E. Harris, (23) F4F/F6F - PTO
Lt. Eugene A. Valencia, (23) F6F - PTO
Col. David C. Schilling, USAAF (22) P-47 - ETO
Col. Gerald R. Johnson, USAAF (22) P-39/P-40/P-38 - PTO
Col. Neel E. Kearby, USAAF (22) P-47 - PTO
Maj. Jay T. Robbins, USAAF (22) P-39/P-38 - PTO
Capt. Dominic S. Gentile, USAAF (22) Spitfire/P-47/P-51 - ETO
Capt. Fred J. Christensen, USAAF (21) P-47 - ETO
Maj. Raymond S. Wetmore, USAAF (21) P-51 - ETO
Capt. Kenneth Walsh, USMC (21) F4U - PTO
Capt. John J. Voll, USAAF (21) P-51 - MTO
Lt. Col. Walker M. Mahurin, USAAF (20) P-47/P-51 - ETO
Capt. Donald N. Aldrich, USMC (20) F4U - PTO
Col. Thomas J. Lynch, USAAF (20) P-39/P-38 - PTO
Lt. Col. Robert Westbrook, USAAF (20) P-40/P-38 - PTO

Now after having a look at this list, we see that the P-38 was among the top scoring aircraft. However, do you notice that NOT a single P-38 is listed in the top ETO rankings? (As a matter of fact, not even the P-51 is the top ETO winner...that distinction goes to the P-47)

 

[DSR T-888]

Interesting discussion...

 

[drgondog]

Top score for an ETO P-38 driver was 20FG James Morris with 7.33, for MTO 82FG Sloan and 14FG Brezas w/12 each .. which might put PTO scores in perspective?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
4. The "fix" for the poor cockpit heater was also simple; use an electric heater.
...

Back to this tidbit - the USAF memo, dated March 11th 1944 (that deals with perspective P-38K), says that cockpit heating is 'satisfactory' with newly produced P-38Js. The electric gun heater is introduced with P-38J-15, so the hot air formerly used to heat the guns is now directed in the cockpit. Also the 'intensifier tube inlet' is now of increased size; those two changes more than doubled the amount of heat entering in the cockpit. Lockheed is also trying to seal any gaps where leakage can occur. Here, last page talks about cockpit heating.