drgondog
Major
Great summary Shortround
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A little harsh considering that the "boffins" at the RAE and the scientists/researchers Langley (NACA) didn't know there was problem with those airfoils in 1938-39-40. Neither company, in fact neither country had wind tunnels working at those speeds.
Building 400mph at sea level seaplanes may tell you that the thick airfoils may have more drag than the 'Boffins' are saying but it doesn't tell you about mach tuck either.
The P-38 had about all the engine power in 1944 that it could stand.
as for "Using the same data, at roughly the same time, Messerschmitt created the 109 with a 0.75-0.8 mach limit, Supermarine created the Spitfire with a 0.85 mach limit."
There was NO data, just guesses and some were better than others.
A little harsh considering that the "boffins" at the RAE and the scientists/researchers Langley (NACA) didn't know there was problem with those airfoils in 1938-39-40. Neither company, in fact neither country had wind tunnels working at those speeds.
Building 400mph at sea level seaplanes may tell you that the thick airfoils may have more drag than the 'Boffins' are saying but it doesn't tell you about mach tuck either.
The P-38 had about all the engine power in 1944 that it could stand.
as for "Using the same data, at roughly the same time, Messerschmitt created the 109 with a 0.75-0.8 mach limit, Supermarine created the Spitfire with a 0.85 mach limit."
There was NO data, just guesses and some were better than others.
Respectfully Kelly needs zero excuses and to label the 23016 airfoil a 'design mistake' is silly given the state of the aerodynamics 'art' of 1937-1938.
Once Kelly figured out the problem in 1942 he proposed the solution, but the War Production Board said 'no'.
Respectfully Kelly needs zero excuses and to label the 23016 airfoil a 'design mistake' is silly given the state of the aerodynamics 'art' of 1937-1938.
Once Kelly figured out the problem in 1942 he proposed the solution, but the War Production Board said 'no'.
Well Willy and R.J didn't make that mistake....and they started earlier...so..it was a mistake. It had the worst mach limit of any significant fighter in WW2. Even the P-47 was better. I think even the Hurricane was better (I'd have to check, this is from memory) and that was just a converted Fury biplane.
And the only way to fix it would have been by a Typhoon to Tempest like conversion with a whole a new wing.
So P-38 lovers, it just wasn't a very good plane. Complex and expensive to build, hard to maintain, complex and hard to fly. Over and above the miserable mach limit it was as buggy as all heck. I'm amazed the design got accepted by the US.
And I guess that's your own arm chair opinion? Have you ever flown a twin engine aircraft and analyzed the P-38's cockpit to really make a viable and intelligent assessment of this?So P-38 lovers, it just wasn't a very good plane. Complex and expensive to build, hard to maintain, complex and hard to fly. Over and above the miserable mach limit it was as buggy as all heck. I'm amazed the design got accepted by the US.
Respectfully Kelly needs zero excuses and to label the 23016 airfoil a 'design mistake' is silly given the state of the aerodynamics 'art' of 1937-1938.
Once Kelly figured out the problem in 1942 he proposed the solution, but the War Production Board said 'no'.
Well Willy and R.J didn't make that mistake....and they started earlier...so..it was a mistake. It had the worst mach limit of any significant fighter in WW2. Even the P-47 was better. I think even the Hurricane was better (I'd have to check, this is from memory) and that was just a converted Fury biplane.
And the only way to fix it would have been by a Typhoon to Tempest like conversion with a whole a new wing.
So P-38 lovers, it just wasn't a very good plane. Complex and expensive to build, hard to maintain, complex and hard to fly. Over and above the miserable mach limit it was as buggy as all heck. I'm amazed the design got accepted by the US.
Plus, it WAS the mount of the two highest-scoring aces for the U.S.A.
Hi Joe,
I agree. What I said above was to not let the speed get to the problem area. That limits the dive to non-dangerous territory and gives the P-38 a good zoom climb back to the bomber's altitude at the same time. I didn't to dive or not dive with the enemy, I said not to dive with them until the problem occourred. That means breaking it off before cirtical mach numberarrives, which also and coincidentally keeps the P-38 near the bombers. Their job was not to kill German fighters, if they were acting as escorts, their job was to protect the bombers.
On or about January 5, 1944 8th AF Intelligence issued a report from British Intelligence detailing the alarming growth of Luftwaffe fighter strength being brought Into Germany from other theatres as well as ramped up manufacturing of day fighter production. The conclusion drawn was that the reinforcements threatened not only daylight strategic operations but also the forthcoming invasion of France.
One of the prime missions of the Operation POINTBLANK was to initiate the Combined Bomber Offensive with the goal of the destruction of the Luftwaffe to ensure air superiority over the Invasion Front. Prior to naming Eisenhower as Supreme Commander Allied Forces, the focus was on industry via daylight strategic operations - which was not succeeding and resulted in Eisenhower bringing Spaatz to command USSAFE to command all US forces in ETO - and focus on the broader directive 'Destroy the Luftwaffe'
So, Doolittle ordered on or about January 11, 1944 - "Seek out the Luftwaffe and destroy it in the air and on the Ground". At the same time he ordered aircraft destroyed on the ground to count the same as an aircraft destroyed in the air.
The bomber commanders called him a 'murderer' and Monk hunter went with Eaker, replaced by Kepner as 8th FC CO reporting to Doolitle. Eaker took Spaatz's MTO 12th AF/15th AF plus RAF assets. Escort was still important and Fighter Commanders were held accountable for reckless abandonment - but the objectives of the fighters were two fold - kill the German Airforce, protect the bombers. This resulted in changes to tactics to achieve both objectives.
So I DO agree that the P-38 should not be dived to critical mach, but don;t agree it was inconsistent with protecting the bombers at teh same time. If you can believe all the hype, the Tuskeegee Airmen employed those SAME tactics quite successfully ... stick with the bombers. It worked for them. Why not for the P-38's?
Irrelevant to compare post D-Day fighter ops in MTO to pre D-Day fighter ops in ETO for the above reasons and background history. Besides, 15th AF FC did just fine in protecting the bombers and killing German fighters
Hi gjs,
I have NO difficulty comprehending the issue. I don;t think it is all that big a limit unless youa re hell-bent on chasing the enemy aircraft down. If youARE< then yes, it is a major stumbling block. If you are there to protect the bombers instead of merely increasing your personal score, it isn't. Sorry, I don;t buy it at all ... unless the need is really to chase the enemy down and kill him. It wasn't the main mission.
There are Two reasons to dive - one to pursue and one to Evade pursuit. The P-38 in a very short time (and ALWAYS immediately after a split S) entered compressibility, hit critical Mach, changed the pitching moment and blanked out the elevator - causing him to just fight for his life.
Chasing him down didn't always work for P-51 and P-47 but both had that option and exercised it many times successfully - not so the P-38 until the dive flap was installed - after the POINTBLANK 8th and 9th AF pre-Invasion objectives were accomplished by the P-51 and P-47
You could argue it backwards. If top speed was paramount, why is the Hellcat the most successful aircraft at air-to-air combat uin the US arsenal of WWII? It shot down more than the P-51 in the air but comes in a number two if you add in ground kills. Rather unusual if speed was the main factor, don't you think?
Two things incorrect. First it had the highest number of air to air victories for the USN/USMC. The USAAF was still part of the US. The Mustang destroyed 5954 in ETO, MTO, PTO and CBI. The F6F destroyed 5168 including 8 in the ETO. In addition the RAF Mustang destroyed another 337 in the ETO/MTO.. source for US credits- USAF 85 Air Victory Credits WWII. Source for RAF (WIP) via Frank Olynyk. The ground scores for the ETO alone were > 4100. (8th AF VCB - June 1945). I'm still working on MTO. In the ETO the Mustang had 4216 in the air while the P-38 scored 452 in the air and the P-47 scored 2658 (ETO Only).
As to Speed? the F6F was faster than all its 1943, 1944 IJN adversaries, could dive faster, and turn better at speeds greater than 300mph. This once again highlights why the ETO was a 'tougher crowd'
I don;t feel maximum speed was all that important, and neither was a slower dive speed ... unless you were in a fight for a kill. If thaht was the case, you were probably ignoring your primary mission in the first place.
Hi Joe,
I agree. What I said above was to not let the speed get to the problem area. That limits the dive to non-dangerous territory and gives the P-38 a good zoom climb back to the bomber's altitude at the same time. I didn't to dive or not dive with the enemy, I said not to dive with them until the problem occourred. That means breaking it off before cirtical mach numberarrives, which also and coincidentally keeps the P-38 near the bombers. Their job was not to kill German fighters, if they were acting as escorts, their job was to protect the bombers....
Their job was to kill the Luftwaffe, the bombers were really just bait to bring them up. That was the great innovation by the great (and always underestimated) Doolittle.
He realised that just chasing them away was pointless, the Luftwaffe pilots lived to fight another day and that would let it steadily build up strength, eventually to level that could overwhelm any escorts.
They had to be killed, chased and killed, setting in train the attrition on pilots and machines that finally killed the organisation.
Take a 'thought experiment'. Say the Luftwaffe had managed to build up to (say) 2,000 fighters over Germany...that would have ended the USAAF's daylight campaign, real fast.
At that sort of numbers they could have (a) intercepted the escorts as they headed towards rendezvousing with the bombers, forcing them to drop tanks and taking them out of the game, (b) staged multi pronged attacks, with enough to draw off the escorts and still enough left to hammer the bombers.
The USAAF then would have had to have built up far greater numbers of escort fighters to counter that (with escorts escorting other escorts at various points).
<SNIP> I'm still a huge P-38 fan... <SNIP>