Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Smells like the BoB problem of the Bf 110, just at a higher performace level.
The P-38 was good for turning hard to the right, because of the torque and "P-factor", not so well to the left.
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
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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 ...
...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...
...
4. The "fix" for the poor cockpit heater was also simple; use an electric heater.
...