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

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

Some of the things the British complained about were clearly production related - from the wiki:

"The gun access doors on the wing had been seen to bulge in flight, so they were replaced with thicker aluminum sheet. Similarly, the landing gear doors deflected open by as much as two inches at maximum speed, so a stronger linkage was installed to hold them flush."

That sounds like production issues. Along with all the faring over and sanding down and filling in of holes and so on, according to the wiki "Despite the success of these modifications, none were applied to other production P-39s."

If that is indeed true it sounds like a somewhat unfinished aircraft was being foisted on them which was indeed a problem with some American planes throughout the war. The problems we have already discussed with the P-38 are part of this, but also as seen with many other American types. The Helldiver as previously mentioned was a good example, the F2A as well. Many times, with many aircraft, the design was fairly close to the tipping point in terms of engine capacity and airframe lift vs. weight.

There was almost always a small raft of things that needed to be added which pushed things over the edge from a nice performing airplane into one that was struggling. American corporate culture didn't seem to have the impetus to do the whole series of fine tuning modifications (like faring over rough spots and fixing the landing gear doors and gun access panels so they didn't bulge out at high speeds) that could tip it back into the positive category again.. let alone sort out tricky and hard to nail down problems like compressibility.

This is the sort of thing that foreign buyers and more autonomous units would often do in the field. The AVG for example did a lot of that same exact kind of sanding, repainting, faring over and waxing to their P-40s to get every iota of performance increase that they could out of them (and increased speed by about 10-15 mph). The Russians did much the same and often removed some or all the wing guns from both early P-40s, Hurricanes and P-39s.

Eventually after being used in combat though many of these things did get corrected even by regular units. Sometimes it took a while, really too long - B-25s took a long time to get proper tail guns for example, even though the need was obvious enough that they put fake ones in the Doolittle raid planes. But the relationship between the UK and the US was often tainted with suspicion. The P-38 required a lot of faith and hard work to get into truly effective working condition (and it cost some lives in the process) but I don't think there is any doubt that it would have been a more effective fighter - at least in the Pacific and CBI - for the British than the Buffalo, the Hurricane or probably even the Spit V, had they been able to collaborate more effectively with the US military bureaucracy and Lockheed.

The British often made somewhat strange choices in their purchasing (both in terms of those accepted and those declined) and they were frequently at odds with the Americans, who they kind of felt should just listen to them more. The Americans were arrogant too and thought they knew better even when they clearly didn't. The Mustang is one of the few success stories perhaps in part because each side was able to claim responsibility for it's eventual triumph.

S
 
From what I read there were issues like the cabin filling with smoke when the guns were fired, compass stopping working when guns fired, things like IFF equipment bolted behind the pilot obscuring rear view, issues with undercarriage damage but this may have been pilot training issue.
To me those are "design" or "operational" issues
 
Some of the things the British complained about were clearly production related - from the wiki:

"The gun access doors on the wing had been seen to bulge in flight, so they were replaced with thicker aluminum sheet. Similarly, the landing gear doors deflected open by as much as two inches at maximum speed, so a stronger linkage was installed to hold them flush."

That sounds like production issues. Along with all the faring over and sanding down and filling in of holes and so on, according to the wiki "Despite the success of these modifications, none were applied to other production P-39s."

Production = ENGINEERING. The assembler at the factory will build to the item requirements indicated on a drawing or some other specification reference. They will not change material, sand or modify lap joints unless indicated on a spec or drawing. The floor inspector will inspect to those requirements.
 
Last edited:
The P-400 was one of the first production models in the P-39 series and undoubtedly production quality could not have been as good as the later models. They were introducing a brand new airplane. By that time the British no longer needed them and certainly didn't want to pay for them. They went to good use with the AAF who really needed them.
 
Bell aircraft had very limited experience in both design and manufacture when working on the initial P-39s. This was their 2nd design to fly (be constructed). The XP-39 was 500lbs over weight (10%) when first delivered. The Airacuda had been overweight and the XP-39 and initial YP-39 overlapped the YFM-1 production.
Companies like Grumman and Vought and Curtiss had built more different designs and many more production aircraft and had much more experience with turning drawings into flying aircraft at the desired weights, and they didn't always get it right.

Sturdier parts are almost always heavier so substituting heavier gauge metal in doors or linkages means more weight. A constant battle in aircraft. Please note even Grumman had trouble with the landing gear doors on the XF5F and that the F4F and earlier didn't use landing gear doors.
 
I think we all know in here that the 391 mph that the XP-39 supposedly hit was, probably, a calculated number with a few incorrect assumptions made. I think we all know the production P-39s were not 390 mph airplanes at their best altitude.

But that does not explain the British assertion of poor quality. Unfortunately, as stated above, I don't know what DOES explain it.

Perhaps some of our British members will ring in in about Bell quality, not performance, which we all know was some 30 - 40 mph short of the 391 mph they thought they were buying.

Cheers.
 
The P-400 was one of the first production models in the P-39 series and undoubtedly production quality could not have been as good as the later models. They were introducing a brand new airplane. By that time the British no longer needed them and certainly didn't want to pay for them. They went to good use with the AAF who really needed them.
That's questionable.

Although there is a learning curve during the production of any new aircraft, the majority of the production P-39 airframe wasn't hand built (as you probably know). Although many smaller components might have been hand built, I'd bet dollars to donuts that most of the aircraft was built with small production tools (sub assemblies) and large production jigs for the the larger components. Having worked on several production lines I've found that some early units were actually built better than latter ones, this for a few reasons - those assembling the unit, operating under a learning curve were a little more careful and contentious during the initial production run. The second factor, the one that everyone forgets about is the production tooling was brand new. Jigs and fixtures wear out when you start running a few hundred units through it. I've seen structural components running down a production line for 20 years, never an issue but then suddenly don't fit the next higher assembly. 9 times out of 10 we found worn tooling.

avp39_04.jpg


At the end of the day one would have to have access to factory quality records that would show production line non-conformances during a given period.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting and if you have any additional information, please post. I believe the basic structural airframes came down the same production lines as US models (our P-39 Expert could probably confirm that). Of course there was different equipment installed so was it the equipment that didn't work or the "different equipment" was poorly installed? If the factory installed equipment that didn't function as "designed" this is not a quality function.

Lastly I think some of the foreign customer equipment was installed at mod centers, but again I could be wrong.
Probably only one production line for both the P-400 and P-39 since they were produced at Buffalo. The Niagra Falls plant opened in the fall of '41 and shows only P-39 production.
Different Bell models, model 14 for the P-400, 14A for the P-39D-1 and 14A-1 for the D-2, and model 15 for the P-39D and 15B for the F (new hydromatic prop). All the same plane with relatively minor differences (cannon, propeller, oxygen, cabin heater, wing guns, guages, throttle etc). Model 14 was for export, 15 for AAF.
Then Model 26 for the long run of P-39K through Q.
 
Hi All!

Is there any information about K-14 installation on P-38`s? As it seems like it was only a test installations and it didnt get operational due to lack of space in cockpit.
Also, some books states that some of P-38J`s had "christmas tree" rockets installations field-fitted - as it was P-38L-5 standart equipment, any details or maybe photos available?
And the same question about AN/APS-13 tail warning radar - did it get into J models?
 
In the case of the P-38, the E models, made before the war, had higher quality fit and finish than did the later models made under wartime urgency. I think you'll find that the same thing was true of the P-39.
Bell P-39 Airacobra color-courtesy-of-Niagara-Aerospace-Museum.jpg
 
I think it is true that production quality may go down as mass production ramps up - (and jigs wear out, less skilled workers are brought in, production spills out into the parking lot as production schedules tighten, new subcontractors or new factories coming online that aren't ready for Prime Time etc.) but this is also offset by improvements in design, including better factory floor layout, better jigs, better or improved materials, subassemblies, component design and so on.

I know from reading the histories of many planes that numerous small but problematic design flaws in early models of various fighters were swiftly 'cleaned up' as they went into larger scale production. Things like gun or fuel fumes getting into the cockpit, parts that oxidise or corrode, fuel systems or self-sealing tanks leaking, or compasses or other instruments not working properly, guns jamming or radios not being grounded right, ailerons or rudder trim tabs needing to be strengthened and so on.

And I suspect, things like wheel doors not being made thick enough on a P-39 though I don't know for sure if that was ever corrected.

So I think you have two competing trends taking place simultaneously, and maybe it's a measure of how good the manufacturing company or agency was run, whether they tended to overall improve the aircraft or contribute to it's decline. Curtiss aicraft for example seemed to generally trend toward decline from 1943 whereas North American aviation went the opposite way toward greater effiicency and quality overall.

Not sure about Bell or Lockheed though the P-38 did seem to improve a lot across 1944.
 
Last edited:
I have researched this question thoroughly. There is no written/sourced statement in Arnold, Spaatz, Doolittle, Eaker, Anderson, Lockheed, NAA histories or correspondence files in public or USAFHRC that I have covered that mentions economics as a factor.

What is true and verified is that Kenney would have taken every P-38 made if he could have had access and the P-38 was doing very well in multi role missions all over the globe. What is also true is that when Dallas P-51C started deliveries in September, 1943, the P-51B/C production quickly outpaced the P-38 at Burbank. What is also true is that the 85 gallon fuselage tank kits to extend range of P-51B/C beyond Berlin were being installed in October, 1943 and those kits were delivered 3:1 to UK over the 55 gallon LE kits for the P-38J-10.

Nobody in 8th AF lost sight that only 2 P-51 equipped groups nearly outscored all the 8th and 9th AF P-47D groups combined (IIRC ~ 10) performing escort for Big Week campaign - and far outscored the combined five P-38 FGs from both 8th and 15th AF. Destruction of the Luftwaffe was the Prime mission of 8th AF from January through May, 1944.
Resp:
I think we are being overly critical of the P-38, simply due to its less than ideal ability in the ETO. I think the P-38 served well for the time period it was used. After all, it did well in the other theaters, particularly in the Pacific. It was the only (P-38F was coming off the production line at the time of PH attack) USAAF fighter at the beginning of WWII that was drop tank capable, which extended its already superior range. Keep in mind that the USAAF in the ETO had to make many adjustments to their Strategic War plan for it to succeed.
To me, the extreme weather likely contributed to its lack of success in another way besides machinically. Since many switches had to be worked by the pilot prior to engagement, was the lack of visibility (enemy fighters too close before spotted) hinder the pilot's time frame to make his P-38 combat ready? Or put another way, did pilots in the PTO, for example . . . identify the threat of Japanese planes . . . at a greater distance, thereby, giving them ample time to make their fighter 'combat ready' (completing their required switching)? I would appreciate any comments. Thanks.
 
I've read that modern Luftwaffe pilots, who train in Texas, need considerable follow-on training to successfully operate in the relatively poor weather and crowded conditions of Central and Western Europe; it would not be surprising were a pilot trained in the plains of Texas to find the weather of Europe, especially in winter, to be daunting. Add the fact that the P-38 was probably the most complex aircraft flown by a single pilot in the US inventory, and there is likely to be a pretty steep learning curve before a pilot is really combat-adept.
 
I've read that modern Luftwaffe pilots, who train in Texas, need considerable follow-on training to successfully operate in the relatively poor weather and crowded conditions of Central and Western Europe; it would not be surprising were a pilot trained in the plains of Texas to find the weather of Europe, especially in winter, to be daunting. Add the fact that the P-38 was probably the most complex aircraft flown by a single pilot in the US inventory, and there is likely to be a pretty steep learning curve before a pilot is really combat-adept.
Resp:
Agree fully. How many pilots who ended up flying the P-38 from Sept 1943 onwards, received adequate time in type . . . or any meaningful follow-on training in theater? Yes, they did receive some, but it was minimal. I believe that follow-on in theater training, from what I have read would have been barely adequate for a single engine fighter. The pressure for fighters, pilots, forced concessions to be made in training.
 
I know I sound like a P-38 hater but I certainly am not.
It was successful in the PTO because it was up against 330mph planes (Zero and Oscar).
It was not as successful in the ETO because it did not have a speed/climb advantage, it was not as maneuverable and couldn't dive due to it's low Mach number.
P-38J-25/L cured the dive problem. They were also faster with faster climb. But those came out after June '44 and by then air superiority had been won in the ETO.
Just too late. Coupled with being a twin and the resultant complexity resulted in it being a handful for new pilots.
Also I believe the P-39 and P-40 were both drop tank capable at the start of WWII.
 
I know I sound like a P-38 hater but I certainly am not.
It was successful in the PTO because it was up against 330mph planes (Zero and Oscar).
It was not as successful in the ETO because it did not have a speed/climb advantage, it was not as maneuverable and couldn't dive due to it's low Mach number.
P-38J-25/L cured the dive problem. They were also faster with faster climb. But those came out after June '44 and by then air superiority had been won in the ETO.
Just too late. Coupled with being a twin and the resultant complexity resulted in it being a handful for new pilots.
Also I believe the P-39 and P-40 were both drop tank capable at the start of WWII.

Environment, tactics and training. The speed of the aircraft encountered in the PTO had nothing to do with this. The Ki-61 was faster than 330 mph, as was the Ki-84. There was no adequate multi engine training for AAF pilots at the beginning of the war. many successful P-38 drivers had several hundred hours in twins before they transitioned into the -38
 
The P-38 was not in the ETO until the late fall of 1943. Oct 15th was the first mission. This is roughly 2 months before the P51s started and the P-38 equipped 1 fighter group (and a bit more) in the ETO from Oct to the end of Dec. This was the 55th, the 20th fighter group ws in England and did attach a squadron at a time to the 55th to gain operational experience. The 20th flew for the first time as a group on Dec 29th.

For some reason that has yet to be explained P-38s in the MTO didn't seem to have much trouble (or at least anywhere near as much) keeping up with or diving from/after Bf 109s and Fw 190s in North Africa, Italy and southern Germany/Austria in 1943/44 ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back