PDA

View Full Version : Fodder for P38 fans and foes Excerpts from usenet thread



XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:08 AM
Entire thread found here: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
Good statistical analysis and lots of interesting info on various birds AWA some good anecdotal stuff.

From: Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: 15 planes of ww2
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:28:25 GMT

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:45:21 GMT, R SVEINSON <rsveinsn@escape.ca> wrote:

>Louis Capdeboscq wrote:

>in his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
>against
>them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
>so called fighter.

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere p*ss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard.


2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

3) From the P-38J-25-LO on, the Lightning was likely the finest fighter package
flying in 1944. It offered versatility unmatched by any other fighter in any
theater, flown by any nation. There was virtually no mission beyond its means.

4) In terms of range, a properly flown P-38J or L (this means using the correct
power and propeller settings) out-ranged the P-51D by as much as 200 miles.

5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 or the P-51.

6) The TRUE maximum speed of a P-38L was not the much published 414 mph.
This reflects Military Power, not War Emergency Power. In WEP, a clean P-38L
could exceed 440 mph. The P-38J with its lower rated engines could pull speeds
in the low to mid 420's.

7) At corner speed, any P-38 model could EASILY out-turn any fighter in the
Luftwaffe inventory.

8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.

9) Most Luftwaffe pilots felt that it was suicide to make a head-on attack
against a P-38. The P-38's four .50 caliber MGs and one 20mm cannon
concentrated in a 30 inch circle was devestating.

10) The P-38 was the only fighter in the ETO that could be flown into an
accelerated stall at 1,000 ft. without fear of torque-rolling into an
unrecoverable attitude. Nothing in the ETO could stay with a P-38 down
in the tree tops. Absolutely nothing.



From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: P-38 as best (was Re: Zero, P-40B...)
Date: 12 Aug 1996


>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>handling characteristics that were dangerous,

Ixnay!!
Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on
take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.



Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experten's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:08 AM
Entire thread found here: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
Good statistical analysis and lots of interesting info on various birds AWA some good anecdotal stuff.

From: Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: 15 planes of ww2
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:28:25 GMT

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:45:21 GMT, R SVEINSON <rsveinsn@escape.ca> wrote:

>Louis Capdeboscq wrote:

>in his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
>against
>them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
>so called fighter.

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere p*ss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard.


2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

3) From the P-38J-25-LO on, the Lightning was likely the finest fighter package
flying in 1944. It offered versatility unmatched by any other fighter in any
theater, flown by any nation. There was virtually no mission beyond its means.

4) In terms of range, a properly flown P-38J or L (this means using the correct
power and propeller settings) out-ranged the P-51D by as much as 200 miles.

5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 or the P-51.

6) The TRUE maximum speed of a P-38L was not the much published 414 mph.
This reflects Military Power, not War Emergency Power. In WEP, a clean P-38L
could exceed 440 mph. The P-38J with its lower rated engines could pull speeds
in the low to mid 420's.

7) At corner speed, any P-38 model could EASILY out-turn any fighter in the
Luftwaffe inventory.

8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.

9) Most Luftwaffe pilots felt that it was suicide to make a head-on attack
against a P-38. The P-38's four .50 caliber MGs and one 20mm cannon
concentrated in a 30 inch circle was devestating.

10) The P-38 was the only fighter in the ETO that could be flown into an
accelerated stall at 1,000 ft. without fear of torque-rolling into an
unrecoverable attitude. Nothing in the ETO could stay with a P-38 down
in the tree tops. Absolutely nothing.



From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: P-38 as best (was Re: Zero, P-40B...)
Date: 12 Aug 1996


>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>handling characteristics that were dangerous,

Ixnay!!
Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on
take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.



Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experten's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:25 AM
You'll have hard time in here bringing such unqualified data as truth. I hope you don't want to prove that P-38 was a good dogfighter. It was an usefull fighter but not in it's element as a dogfighter. I can't wait to fly it though, Gibbage is doing a great job on it.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:32 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You'll have hard time in here bringing such
- unqualified data as truth. I hope you don't want to
- prove that P-38 was a good dogfighter. It was an
- usefull fighter but not in it's element as a
- dogfighter. I can't wait to fly it though, Gibbage
- is doing a great job on it.

I think it goes to say that few of the planes represented in FB are "good dogfighters" and the majority (but not all) are from early in the war when dogfighting was still the main tactic of the day.

As many have pointed out...as the war progressed (ie. around the time that the definitive models of the Lightning were emerging) designers focused more on speed and firepower for devastating hit and run attacks rather than a swirling melee of fighters. Climb, attack, and run to strike again another day.

Nowhere does he suggest that the Lightning is a dogfighter. It apparently turns better than contemporary Luftwaffe aircraft...which doesn't say much really. What he does say is that its a well respected plane, perhaps a little under respected around here...but that'll probably change.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:36 AM
hmmmm that was interesting, other german pilots opiones iv read were were not as faverable.. iv read knokes book also ,its good.......also i believe the famous gun camera footage on the b-17 attack that im sure weve all seen a thousand times was from knoke.........i stay reserved on this subject of yours but i am in no way p-38 hater....thank you for the very good post

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:40 AM
I was gonna say, "Wait till Huckebein_FW sees this, he won't have any of the 'American's had some decent planes' nonesense."

But I'm too late, he's already in it telling us how wrong all that stuff was.

Go figure.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:48 AM
Huck is right, most of the debates of this kind ended bad, so...
a)Yes, P-38 was a good airplane, but not the best(unless you want to judge everything according to standard data), there are too may factors to include here the most important was the pilot.
b)There were P-38 victories against Bf110, and Bf110 against P-38.
c)most veterans from most airforces tended after the end of the war to declare this and that, but it's hard to make any precise conclusion.
d) what exactly is the point of this thread?

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 01:31 AM
Von_Zero wrote:

-
- d) what exactly is the point of this thread?
-

General Discussion...of the Lightning and a link referral.



Message Edited on 09/01/0303:18AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 01:37 AM
The Usenet discussion was an excellent read, but I didn't get all the way through it.

I think the P-38 is highly underrated and if Oleg does it justice, it will do just fine in FB.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 01:57 AM
Lance42 wrote:
- Von_Zero wrote:
-
--
-- d) what exactly is the point of this thread?
--
-
- General Discussion...of the Lightning and a link
- referall.
-
Yes, but just seems like you want to wash his honour, and that IMO, isn't necesaire, nobody here flamed it in any way..... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 02:01 AM
Von_Zero wrote:

- Yes, but just seems like you want to wash his
- honour, and that IMO, isn't necesaire, nobody here
- flamed it in any way


With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 02:18 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Von_Zero wrote:
-
-- Yes, but just seems like you want to wash his
-- honour, and that IMO, isn't necesaire, nobody here
-- flamed it in any way
-
-
- With all due respect, what the hell are you talking
- about?
-
- Well this guy(no offence intended) camed here with a big post where he started to tell us how good was the P-38, just like somebody would have said the exact opposite .(!)
Just like wahing his honour. What is that hard to understand.
Obviously I was wrong.
Sheehs! I got one wrong impresion and now I get flamed??

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 02:50 AM
Von_Zero wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- Von_Zero wrote:
--
--- Yes, but just seems like you want to wash his
--- honour, and that IMO, isn't necesaire, nobody here
--- flamed it in any way
--
--
-- With all due respect, what the hell are you talking
-- about?
--
-- Well this guy(no offence intended) camed here with a big post where he started to tell us how good was the P-38, just like somebody would have said the exact opposite .(!)
- Just like wahing his honour. What is that hard to
- understand.
-
- Obviously I was wrong.
-
- Sheehs! I got one wrong impresion and now I get
- flamed??


Who's flaming you? I didn't know what "washing his honor" meant.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:05 AM
Would the late P38's really outclimb a FW190D9? At what altitudes?

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:11 AM
Late P-38Js and Ls were very good climbers.

From "America's Hundred Thousand":

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/P-38J_Climb.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 09/01/0307:14AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:03 AM
The P-51D flew 8 hour missions in the Pacific. In the decisive air battles over Europe in Jan-May 1944 the P-51 could outrange the P-38.

The P-38 was limited by compression to a low mach compared to other US fighters. Sure, later versions came with a flap that allowed a pullout, but a split s and dive was a valid tactic to escape a P-38 in Europe for the entire war. The placarded dive limit was mach .65. Even with the dive recovery flaps this speed could only be safely exceeded by 20 mph. Max dive angle without dive recovery flaps was 15 degrees, with them was 45 degrees. The P-38 could still outdive and outroll most of its opponents in the Pacific.

The P-38 had an uncurable inertia problem, and the onset of roll had a delay. Once the roll started it did well, but earlier versions rolled poorly at any kind of speed. Power boost in later versions helped this, but did nothing to alleviate the roll delay.

Early versions of the P-38 flew the same missions over the same ground against the same enemy as the P-51 at the same time, in virtually the same numbers, from Jan-May 1944 in the ETO. P-51's were much better at shooting down enemy fighters. As valid a comparison as there ever was, and the P-51B comes out much the better.

Many Japanese pilots accounts I've read considered the P-51 the best plane of the war on the Allies' side. Saburo Sakai was particularly enthusiastic after doing a 500 mph diving turn in one.

A poll amongst LW pilots after the war ranked the P-38 last amongst Allied Fighters.

The notorius Joint Fighter Conference at Patuxent had a number of pilots fly the P-38. It ranked very poorly in maneuverability. It ranked last in the category "Best Dive Stability and Control". The P-38L ranked behind the P-47D, P-51D, F4U-1, F6F-5 and F4U-4 in "Best All Around Fighter Above 25,000 feet", and behind the P-51D, F4U1-D, and F6F-5 in "Best All_Around Fighter Below 25,000 feet".

Hub Zemke, the legendary fighter leader for the 8th AF considered the P-51 "better" than the P-38.

My Dad has "raced" P-38's while a fighter pilot in the 40's, in both a P-47N and P-51D. The Jug and Pony both had better top ends. Later P-38 versions accelerated a bit better level, but the Pony with a slight nose down blew both away. His opinion was that the P-38 was a fine, fine plane, with a couple of limiting factors.

The P-38 did a lot of things well, some extremely well. I just wanted to give another view.

Sources:
"Clash of Wings" by Boyne
"America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean
"P-38 Aces of the MTO and ETO" by Stanaway
"B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" by Takai and Sakaida.
"Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces of the Pacific and CBI" by Stanaway
Various magazine articles.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:20 AM
From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: RR vs Packard Merlins (was: The Ultimate piston Engine fighter ?)
Date: 11 Nov 1998 05:44:42 GMT

The following climb figures appear in various test documents from several
different test facilities.

Time to height:
P-38J sea level to 23,800 ft, 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 6.19 min., still
maintaining 2,900 fpm at that altitude.
P-38L sea level to 20,000 ft. 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 4.91min, still
maintaining 3,450 fpm at that altitude.

Note: Again, this is from Usenet. I can't back it up. Same goes for Dora numbers found here: http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/Dora.htm


ZG77_Lignite wrote:
- Would the late P38's really outclimb a FW190D9? At
- what altitudes?
Note:


-

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:40 AM
Also, I just found proof that the almost all P-38L's had the K-14 gunsight. All that firepower, and the accuracy. Whoo I cant wait. I love the 38.

In the IL2 enviornment I think the P-38 will do well. It will be able to carry a large ammount of bombs and rockets, and fight its way back to base. This is the way I see it. 109 and 190's will get you a few kills, but a P-38, p-39, p-47 will get you back home after you get a few kills. When I fly a German AC, its damn near impossible to get home with damage. I can routeanly get back home in a smoking P-39.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:16 AM
One word...Mosquito!

4 x 0303's and 4 x 20mm concentrated within the nose and chin housing.

The debate as to which was better the P38 or Mosquito is purely speculative. They were both versatile fighters and did more than was expected of them.

True fighter bombers in every sense of the word.

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:17 PM
Several claims have bveen made now that the P-38L was faster and a better climber than the P-38J and H. Yet all three shared engine designs that produced the same HP at takeoff, military, combat and normal settings. The L was the heaviest of the three.

Just interested, can anyone explain why it would be faster and climb better?

Skychimps graph basically shows the J and L to be identical in performance of speed, T/C and climb rate. It also shows top speeds for both military AND combat settings. Contrary to the first poster, the top end for the J and L was in the 420 mph range, just as I've seen in every other set of data on the type.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:34 PM
I think when people say the L was the fastest, I think they are compairing them to early F and E models. The early models had 1400HP but could only use 1300 of it because of inadiquate intercoolers and radiators. The L and J had the same ~1600HP engines, and were very much identical but a few details like landing light, gun camera, and the boosted alarons and dive flaps were standard. Also some cockpit tweaks. I dont tihnk this added much at all too the weight. Well maybe, but they should climb nearly identical with the J having a slight lead.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 02:08 PM
Agreed, Gib. I'm not going to look it up, but the L was not very much heavier, just a few dozen pounds empty, IIRC. Basically the J and L were identical.

These types came too late for the Jan-May 1944 bloodletting over the Continent. By the time they were available in numbers the decision had been made to transition the entire 8th AF fighters to P-51's (except the 56th). Another part of the decision was that the type burned twice the gas, was way more expensive, slower to build, and more maintenance intensive than the Mustang. Add that to the fact the Mustang groups scored at about 4 times the rate of the P-38 groups in that time frame and the decision was easy.

The J and L versions, however, DO deserve a look as "Best Fighter of WW2".

I've read and heard many times that the P-38 was actually longer ranged than the P-51, but I swear, I can find NO evidence this is the case. The fact that they often flew longer missions is undoubtedly true. But every chart, stat etc I've ever seen shows the P-51 to have a slightly better range.

America's Hyndred Thousand goes into this fairly extensively, showing theoretical and actual ranges, under many mission profiles at two altitudes. The P-51 is slightly better in all. It's biggest edge is in the fighter bomber role, with the external hardpoints carrying bombs, the range limited by internal fuel. Anyway, both types had great range.

There is also a comment in the P-38 section, by one of the pilots at the Joint Fighter Conference. He said, to paraphrase, "its better to have a plane that goes like hell and has a few problems, than one with a few problems that doesn't go like hell".As I posted above, my Dad said almost the exact thing about the type. I'm wondering if this wasn't the "conventional wisdom" of the day about the Lightning.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:43 PM
The noticable difference between the late J models and the Ls was a light in the L's wing.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 06:22 PM
Why dont you just shut the Hell up for once Huck. Good God man!I am so sick of your crap. you and your "all US Aircraft were sh*t" attitude just chaps my hide. So uuless you canprove that everything that has been said positive anout the P-38 is all BS then you need to sit back have a coke a smile and shut the hell up.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You'll have hard time in here bringing such
- unqualified data as truth. I hope you don't want to
- prove that P-38 was a good dogfighter. It was an
- usefull fighter but not in it's element as a
- dogfighter. I can't wait to fly it though, Gibbage
- is doing a great job on it.

IU knew when i started reading this thread that there would be at least ONE anti american aszhat shootign their mouth off abought how weak us planes were. turns out to be you.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 06:55 PM
From: Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: Mosquito vs Fortress (again) (was: Lancaster)
Date: 25 Feb 2000 08:39:34 -0500

On 24 Feb 2000 00:16:01 -0500, Harri Pihl <haolpi@pois.jyu.fi> wrote:

>"C.C. Jordan" kirjoitti:
>
>> When we look at a resin impregnated, molded plywood such as that
>> used in the Mosquito, we will see that the material's modulus of rigidity
>> and modulus of elasticity is substantially below that of the commonly used
>> aluminum alloys of the time. Moreover, the yield strength of the plywood
>> is much lower as well.
>
>Well, this is partially true but Mosquito was made from plywood and
>balsa composite. This stuff was much thicker (20-30mm) than conventional
>moulded plywood (3-10mm) but still lighter. And overall molded plywood
>is very rigid if stress can be divided to large area, this is why
>plywood molded fuselages were generally pretty light and strong.

Yes, molded plywood can be quite rigid, but as I said above, the yield
strength is relatively low. Under localized stress, the plywood will fail
before alloy.

>Infact my opinion is that Mosquitos fuselage was probaly lightest possible and
>light alloy construction could not have been any lighter. BTW De
>Haviland used this sanwich system even in their jets (Vampires front
>fuselage) despite there was no shortage of light alloys.

Again, this is a given. lightly stressed areas of the airframe can be
constructed of wood. However, the problem with the material is its
inability to handle high stress. The Mosquito was not certified for the
g loads commonly experienced in fighters. IIRC, the Mossy was stressed
for 6.5 g momentary, and only 5 g's sustained. That is a direct reflection
on its construction material.

>But in wing construction situation is different;

Indeed it is. The tail surfaces are another area where high stresses
are encountered. Again, that is why the Mosquito was g limited.

>Overall the Mosquito was pretty light aircraft and very good evidence
>which proves that wooden aircraft can be light and strong if right
>construction techniques are used.

More importantly, the Mosquito was designed as a bomber, not a fighter.
It was not designed for the extreme g levels of high speed aerial combat.

>Well Mr. Jordan, seems that you have learn something about aircraft
>contruction,

I can always learn something. However, I was trained in aircraft maintenance
and repair in the military. I have participated in the building of three
home-built composite construction aircraft. 24 years ago, I was part of a design
team that developed a successful Formula car chassis (aluminum monocoque
tub). I am not ignorant of the subject of aircraft construction.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 07:11 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Several claims have bveen made now that the P-38L
- was faster and a better climber than the P-38J and
- H. Yet all three shared engine designs that
- produced the same HP at takeoff, military, combat
- and normal settings. The L was the heaviest of the
- three.
-
- Just interested, can anyone explain why it would be
- faster and climb better?


From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 12 Feb 1999 03:28:49 GMT

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:07:08 GMT, g_alcala@hotmail.com wrote:

>In article <36c2e13e.1656074@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state
>> 414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30
>> Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and
>> I'll go into that a little later.
>>
>> The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
>
>Which J, with or without leading edge tanks? This looks like a -15 with them.
>
>> The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
>> This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
>> usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
>> WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
>> As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.
>>
>> The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
>> at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
>> additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
>> Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
>> between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
>> Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
>> F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
>> source than Green and Swanborough et al.

The WEP numbers for the P-38J ARE USAAF numbers. From the Experimental
Engineering Division, Fighter Branch. 421.5 mph@25,800 ft. The aircraft was
a J-10 # 42-67869. Takeoff weight was 15,597 lbs with ammo ballast.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.

"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 07:41 PM
Interesting. All the sources I have show the -30 and -17 to have exactly the same HP available at all settings, TO, Combat, Military and Normal.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 07:47 PM
If the F-30 had a Combat power of 1700 hp, that is a total of 200 more HP than the F-17 could muster. As draggy as the P-38 was, 23 more mph seems a stretch, especially since the top speeds of 420 listed, for both types, was at the 27,000 feet level, not 20,000-23,000 feet.

The top speed down there was about 410 mph, so an increase of 30+ mph with 200 more hp does seem a stretch..

Just wondering. We agree on the J version. 421 @ 27,000 feet. Another 200 hp would add to that, but all that?

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 07:53 PM
The Mosquito was adapted to the fighter role. The P-38 was a fighter adapted to the FB role.

Big Difference.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:34 PM
3400 HP is just under 6% more than 3200 HP. So, at Combat power the F-30 produced about 6% more HP than the F-17 (1700 vs 1600 x 2).

The claimed top end of 443 mph for the L model, at around 22,000 feet is about 33 mph faster than the J's 410 at that altitude. That is over a 7% speed increase. At 6% more HP. I don't think so. One of them is wrong.

If the added speed was at 25,500 for the L model, that compares to the agreed upon 420 mph top end of the J version, for 22 more mph. That is still a 6.2% increase, at just under 6% more HP.

Something just doesn't add up. We all know simply adding say 10% more HP doesn't necessarily add up to 10% more speed. Diminished returns.

I have no doubts the P-38L, if it had 200 more HP, could go faster than the J. But something doesn't QUITE add up.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:54 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- Why dont you just shut the Hell up for once Huck.
- Good God man!I am so sick of your crap. you and your
- "all US Aircraft were sh*t" attitude just chaps my
- hide. So uuless you canprove that everything that
- has been said positive anout the P-38 is all BS then
- you need to sit back have a coke a smile and shut
- the hell up.
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- You'll have hard time in here bringing such
-- unqualified data as truth. I hope you don't want to
-- prove that P-38 was a good dogfighter. It was an
-- usefull fighter but not in it's element as a
-- dogfighter. I can't wait to fly it though, Gibbage
-- is doing a great job on it.
-
- IU knew when i started reading this thread that
- there would be at least ONE anti american aszhat
- shootign their mouth off abought how weak us planes
- were. turns out to be you.

Maybe you should learn to read, becasue he didn't say that it was a crap plane, but only that it wasn't a dogfighter. I suggest a visit either at the optician or back at elementary school.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:56 PM
Slickun wrote:
- 3400 HP is just under 6% more than 3200 HP. So, at
- Combat power the F-30 produced about 6% more HP than
- the F-17 (1700 vs 1600 x 2).
-
- The claimed top end of 443 mph for the L model, at
- around 22,000 feet is about 33 mph faster than the
- J's 410 at that altitude. That is over a 7% speed
- increase. At 6% more HP. I don't think so. One of
- them is wrong.
-
- If the added speed was at 25,500 for the L model,
- that compares to the agreed upon 420 mph top end of
- the J version, for 22 more mph. That is still a
- 6.2% increase, at just under 6% more HP.
-
- Something just doesn't add up. We all know simply
- adding say 10% more HP doesn't necessarily add up to
- 10% more speed. Diminished returns.
-
- I have no doubts the P-38L, if it had 200 more HP,
- could go faster than the J. But something doesn't
- QUITE add up.

Did they have the same propellers? Maybe it could explain some things if they changed it.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:06 PM
nicolas10, not to stir things up, but what is a dogfighter? I've been told on these threads that "dogfighting" is basically a turning fight. Boom and zooming doesn't really count, so the Mustang and Thunderbolt are forever relegated to the non-dogfighter pile of lost planes, and thus sniffed at by most folks that fly online.

The P-38 was a good turning machine, believe it or not. It had a set of flaps that greatly aided it below about 300 mph IAS, fantastic stall characteristics that allowed you to just keep pulling. The plane would stall, mush outward a bit, lose some altitude, pick up a bit of speed, then start turning again. It had a good power to weight ratio. Punching one throttle and ******ing the other could produce a near impossible instantaneous turn. It is said Tommy McGuire did this all the time. It was officially forbidden, as it often ruptured the main wing spar, causing a write off.

It wasn't so good in a twisting turning fight due to the roll delay. But a simple turning fight, round and round, it was pretty tough. In fact, if you were a LW flier you were in the P-38's envelope.

So. Was it a dogfighter or not?

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:30 PM
Slickun wrote:
- 3400 HP is just under 6% more than 3200 HP. So, at
- Combat power the F-30 produced about 6% more HP than
- the F-17 (1700 vs 1600 x 2).
-
- The claimed top end of 443 mph for the L model, at
- around 22,000 feet is about 33 mph faster than the
- J's 410 at that altitude. That is over a 7% speed
- increase. At 6% more HP. I don't think so. One of
- them is wrong.
-
- If the added speed was at 25,500 for the L model,
- that compares to the agreed upon 420 mph top end of
- the J version, for 22 more mph. That is still a
- 6.2% increase, at just under 6% more HP.
-
- Something just doesn't add up. We all know simply
- adding say 10% more HP doesn't necessarily add up to
- 10% more speed. Diminished returns.
-
- I have no doubts the P-38L, if it had 200 more HP,
- could go faster than the J. But something doesn't
- QUITE add up.
-
Slickun wrote:
- If the F-30 had a Combat power of 1700 hp, that is a
- total of 200 more HP than the F-17 could muster. As
- draggy as the P-38 was, 23 more mph seems a stretch,
- especially since the top speeds of 420 listed, for
- both types, was at the 27,000 feet level, not
- 20,000-23,000 feet.
-
- The top speed down there was about 410 mph, so an
- increase of 30+ mph with 200 more hp does seem a
- stretch..
-
- Just wondering. We agree on the J version. 421 @
- 27,000 feet. Another 200 hp would add to that, but
- all that?
-
-Interesting. All the sources I have show the -30 and -17 to have exactly the same HP available at all settings, TO, Combat, Military and Normal.

Bodie obtained his data directly from
>> Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
>> F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
>> source than Green and Swanborough et al.

From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 12 Feb 1999 03:54:38 GMT

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:35:16 -0500, Bob Andrew <randrew@fred.net> wrote:

>If Lockheed was testing its own aircraft, I would call this commercially
>available data

It should be obvious that Lockheed would do exhaustive testing on their
own aircraft. Lockheed's internal test reports WERE NOT RELEASED PUBLICALLY. NOR WERE ALLISON'S.


>Without knowing how this plane was loaded or configured (ammo, bombracks,
>fuel load), or how its engines were tuned and prepped for the test, I
>would stick with the figures which at least claim to be measured 'under
>typical combat loads'.

The testing in question is always performed at combat weight with ballast
added for ammmunition. In other words, full load, clean configuration.


>Also, the published WEP hp for the -30 is 1600, where does 1725 come from?
>The difference represents 9% of a power setting which is already supposed to
>be extremely high.

There's that word again: "Published". Published by who?

Allison spent a great deal of time and money on the "dash thirty" program.
They produced volumes of dynometer data for Lockheed and the AAF.
Lockheed did their own testing and confirmed the Allison numbers. Hence,
the installation of the -30 in the L model.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/

Note: -30 at WEP was 1725+hp, that's a 250hp increase thus 9% . Though I still find your skepticism reasonable. ("draggy" characterization I do not /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )






Message Edited on 09/01/0308:36PM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:16 PM
Ya. The P-38 was a VERY CLEAN design. One of the best in the war.

Gib

Lance42 wrote:
- Note: -30 at WEP was 1725+hp, that's a 250hp
- increase thus 9% . Though I still find your
- skepticism reasonable. ("draggy" characterization I
- do not)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:28 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Ya. The P-38 was a VERY CLEAN design. One of the
- best in the war.
-
- Gib


The P-38 was not really a clean design in comparison to other US fighters. P-51 drag coefficient was .017, the P-47 was .022, P-38 was .027.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:33 PM
Slickun wrote:
- nicolas10, not to stir things up, but what is a
- dogfighter? I've been told on these threads that
- "dogfighting" is basically a turning fight. Boom
- and zooming doesn't really count, so the Mustang and
- Thunderbolt are forever relegated to the
- non-dogfighter pile of lost planes, and thus sniffed
- at by most folks that fly online.
-
- The P-38 was a good turning machine, believe it or
- not. It had a set of flaps that greatly aided it
- below about 300 mph IAS, fantastic stall
- characteristics that allowed you to just keep
- pulling. The plane would stall, mush outward a bit,
- lose some altitude, pick up a bit of speed, then
- start turning again. It had a good power to weight
- ratio. Punching one throttle and ******ing the other
- could produce a near impossible instantaneous turn.
- It is said Tommy McGuire did this all the time. It
- was officially forbidden, as it often ruptured the
- main wing spar, causing a write off.
-
- It wasn't so good in a twisting turning fight due to
- the roll delay. But a simple turning fight, round
- and round, it was pretty tough. In fact, if you were
- a LW flier you were in the P-38's envelope.
-
- So. Was it a dogfighter or not?

It could be a dogfighter actually. Tho the delayed roll would be an issue there. Also a FW would do a lot or rolling against a P38 you can bet on it. But I just said Huck didn't say the plane sucked, he said it wasn't a dfighter. If the guy had answered like you did, I wouldn't have said anything about his reading problems /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Nic



http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg


Message Edited on 09/01/0311:34PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:37 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
-
- It could be a dogfighter actually. Tho the delayed
- roll would be an issue there. Also a FW would do a
- lot or rolling against a P38 you can bet on it. But
- I just said Huck didn't say the plane sucked, he
- said it wasn't a dfighter. If the guy had answered
- like you did, I wouldn't have said anything about
- his reading problems /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-

The difference is that Huck has a history of discarding USAAF aircraft as pure junk. His reputation has preceded him, as it were.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:20 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The difference is that Huck has a history of
- discarding USAAF aircraft as pure junk. His
- reputation has preceded him, as it were.
-
- Harry Voyager

Well then why not give him a break when he does not?

Besides half the times people jump me like that smart boy in here and start it all.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:16 AM
Check out this roll rate comparison chart; P38 with and without aileron boost,FW190A4,and P51B. Note the curves above 350mph.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html

Go here for Climb rate graph.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:21 AM
Lance42 wrote:
- Check out this roll rate comparison chart; P38 with
- and without aileron boost,FW190A4,and P51B. Note the
- curves above 350mph.


Boosted ailerons do wonders at high speed.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:51 AM
P-38 not a good dogfighter?

Hmmm. Maybe so.

Or maybe not. Actually, in real life I don't think any planes were "good" dogfighters, since it was a fact that if you chose to engage in dogfights you couldn't expect to live long.

Proper tactical doctrine taught to avoid dogfights at all costs. There are better ways to get kills. Hartmann didn't rack up all those kills by jumping into the furball and turning like a fool.

Just look at what is perhaps the best "dogfighter" of the war, the A6M. It got wiped out in droves because Japanese tactics emphasized dogfighting. By the time the Japanese rethought their tactics--and accordingly started building planes with good speed, armament, and armor protection--it was too late. They mainly just tried to crash their planes into boats instead. Most of their good pilots were dead anyway.

So, to discuss the merits of the P-38--the real-life P-38--as a dogfighter is to argue over points that are pretty well moot. To discuss the video-game P-38 as a dogfighter is completely relevant, however, since dogfighting (however unrealistic) is the flavor of combat in flight sims.

Overall I think the combat record of the P-38 speaks for itself; it was decent in Europe, brilliant in the Pacific.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:06 AM
Sorry. My fault for using 1700 instead of 1725 for the -30. It should, as you say, have 250 more HP, not 200 as I said. Still, we agree the numbers don't look quite right.

If you don't like the "draggy" characteristic, can we say it had more drag than every other US fighter except the Hellcat and Black Widow?

The P-38 with boosted ailerons looks great. However, the inertia thing was always there. The boosted ailerons improved the Lightnings high speed roll rate greatly, but didn't affect the inertia-caused delay of roll. Once it got going it was very good.

Edited to add the aileron thing.





Message Edited on 09/02/0312:10AM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:19 AM
clever engine use would help in combat, even if it was disallowed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
that armament would tear up a zero, thats for sure /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:32 AM
No I don't need to have my eyes checked and I'm too dam old for to go back to grade school. lol

What I did was read between the lines. Almost every time some one on this board post something positive about a US aircraft, Huck & ppl of like mind will attempt to trash it. And again Most US fighters WERE good dogfighters. If not I'm sure I would be wearing Jackboots and goose stepping right now. I just get sick of all these Luft~Chickens cackling a bought what great dogfighters the Luftwaffte planes were and how sorry us plans were and it's all a bunch of BS. Overall the Luftwafft and US were pretty much equal in fighters. But it's as much the pilot as it is the plane. True he didn't say it here out right but from some of his former posts on the subject of US aircraft, and they're capabilities...it's obvious that his intent is to trash US planes when ever the opportunity arises. So his intentions are quite obvious. To totally attempt to discredit the truth that the US had as good if not better than anything the luftwaffte could put in the air.

nicolas10 wrote:
- Maybe you should learn to read, becasue he didn't
- say that it was a crap plane, but only that it
- wasn't a dogfighter. I suggest a visit either at the
- optician or back at elementary school.
-
- Nic


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:01 AM
Slickun wrote:
- If you don't like the "draggy" characteristic, can
- we say it had more drag than every other US fighter
- except the Hellcat and Black Widow?

Roger. A tactful compromise. You are indeed slick /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




Message Edited on 09/02/0303:02AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:18 AM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- No I don't need to have my eyes checked and I'm too
- dam old for to go back to grade school. lol
-
- What I did was read between the lines. Almost every
- time some one on this board post something positive
- about a US aircraft, Huck & ppl of like mind will
- attempt to trash it. And again Most US fighters WERE
- good dogfighters. If not I'm sure I would be wearing
- Jackboots and goose stepping right now. I just get
- sick of all these Luft~Chickens cackling a bought
- what great dogfighters the Luftwaffte planes were
- and how sorry us plans were and it's all a bunch of
- BS. Overall the Luftwafft and US were pretty much
- equal in fighters. But it's as much the pilot as it
- is the plane. True he didn't say it here out right
- but from some of his former posts on the subject of
- US aircraft, and they're capabilities...it's obvious
- that his intent is to trash US planes when ever the
- opportunity arises. So his intentions are quite
- obvious. To totally attempt to discredit the truth
- that the US had as good if not better than anything
- the luftwaffte could put in the air.

Well well read between the lines doesn't do it. Actually I remember Huck being flamed for anti americanism while comparing two US planes. How twisted is that?

Besides I think it's a very healthy offset to the many people who claim that every american plane rules if only because it's american, and all the rest is POS.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:51 AM
Was thumbing through the P38 issue from the "Walk Around" series today and saw a pic of gun test with tracer at night. View was from rear quarter level. Looked like a veritable death ray. Will look good in my sig.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:16 AM
Interesting reading. It's great when a debate about this sort of thing comes up between people who know what they're talking about, rather than the usual tirade of USAF fans vs. Luftwafe fans vs. VVS fans...

One thing, though - Lance, you appear to have responded to pretty much everything, bar Slickun's first post which seemed to me to contain quit a few good points. Any chance you could come back at them?

Slickun wrote:
- The P-51D flew 8 hour missions in the Pacific. In
- the decisive air battles over Europe in Jan-May 1944
- the P-51 could outrange the P-38.
-
- The P-38 was limited by compression to a low mach
- compared to other US fighters. Sure, later versions
- came with a flap that allowed a pullout, but a split
- s and dive was a valid tactic to escape a P-38 in
- Europe for the entire war. The placarded dive limit
- was mach .65. Even with the dive recovery flaps
- this speed could only be safely exceeded by 20 mph.
- Max dive angle without dive recovery flaps was 15
- degrees, with them was 45 degrees. The P-38 could
- still outdive and outroll most of its opponents in
- the Pacific.
-
- The P-38 had an uncurable inertia problem, and the
- onset of roll had a delay. Once the roll started it
- did well, but earlier versions rolled poorly at any
- kind of speed. Power boost in later versions helped
- this, but did nothing to alleviate the roll delay.
-
- Early versions of the P-38 flew the same missions
- over the same ground against the same enemy as the
- P-51 at the same time, in virtually the same
- numbers, from Jan-May 1944 in the ETO. P-51's were
- much better at shooting down enemy fighters. As
- valid a comparison as there ever was, and the P-51B
- comes out much the better.
-
- Many Japanese pilots accounts I've read considered
- the P-51 the best plane of the war on the Allies'
- side. Saburo Sakai was particularly enthusiastic
- after doing a 500 mph diving turn in one.
-
- A poll amongst LW pilots after the war ranked the
- P-38 last amongst Allied Fighters.
-
- The notorius Joint Fighter Conference at Patuxent
- had a number of pilots fly the P-38. It ranked very
- poorly in maneuverability. It ranked last in the
- category "Best Dive Stability and Control". The
- P-38L ranked behind the P-47D, P-51D, F4U-1, F6F-5
- and F4U-4 in "Best All Around Fighter Above 25,000
- feet", and behind the P-51D, F4U1-D, and F6F-5 in
- "Best All_Around Fighter Below 25,000 feet".
-
- Hub Zemke, the legendary fighter leader for the 8th
- AF considered the P-51 "better" than the P-38.
-
- My Dad has "raced" P-38's while a fighter pilot in
- the 40's, in both a P-47N and P-51D. The Jug and
- Pony both had better top ends. Later P-38 versions
- accelerated a bit better level, but the Pony with a
- slight nose down blew both away. His opinion was
- that the P-38 was a fine, fine plane, with a couple
- of limiting factors.
-
- The P-38 did a lot of things well, some extremely
- well. I just wanted to give another view.
-
- Sources:
- "Clash of Wings" by Boyne
- "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean
- "P-38 Aces of the MTO and ETO" by Stanaway
- "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" by Takai and Sakaida.
- "Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces of the Pacific and
- CBI" by Stanaway
- Various magazine articles.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:21 AM
That's a tall order. But for you I'll try. Will take some time though.

BTW, when I started this thread I was'nt trying to sell anything. Yes, I like the Lightning but can't vouch for all the heresy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . HOWEVER, today coincidentally, while visiting the local USAAF aircraft museum, after telling a museum guide some of the same things I've posted here, he chuckled and said "my partner ( who was a P38 vet) would agree with that." The guide said that some of the ex P-38 pilots that visit say "the P-38 was the best; not the Mustang", and are very "enthusiastic". Of course, he had to add that "from what he'd read" the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII."
The guide was a retired Aero. Engineer and his partner has passed unfortunately.



Message Edited on 09/03/0307:16AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 05:29 AM
For your consideration:
from http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/heidenspeaks2.html

A LETTER FROM CAPT. HEIDEN TO MARTIN CAIDIN

Many of you who are aviation enthusiasts will be familiar with the name Martin Caidin, whose excellent book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38" is considered one of the best works out there on the subject.
Mr. Caidin was prompted to write the book by an unsolicited letter from Capt. Arthur W. Heiden and this is the letter in it's entirety:


Gentlemen:
I would like to see one accurate and authoritative book published that would be the historical work on the Lockheed P-38 fighter aircraft.
Since I have enjoyed many books published by your company and especially respect the aviation writing of Mr. Martin Caidin, this letter is an attempt to persuade you both to produce a book on this subject with the impact of Flying Forts, Zero!, Me-109 and others.

As a former Combat Fighter Pilot, Fighter Training Instructor, and Staff Combat Operations Officer with experience in P-38, P-40 and P-51 aircraft, I am continually provoked by the repetitive inaccurate writing that forms the history of the P-38. As the B-17 shaped Bomber Doctrine, I am convinced that the P-38 has had as great an impacton Fighter Doctrine.

Considering the fragmented and inaccurate history on this great machine, I cannot express too strongly my feeling of urgency for this effort to be made.

If I may suggest:

1. The historic significance of the P-38 has been missed.

2. It was the first all-purpose aircraft in the military inventory.

3. It was able to adapt to all missions, without reservation, throughout World War II.

4. Vastly outnumbered in all combat theaters, it always held its own and advanced against all circumstances until production and training could overpower the enemy.

5. It was the direct lead-in to jet operations, including systems, problems, characteristics and capabilities.

6. Several ocean crossings led to experiments that formulated post-World War II nuclear delivery and mobile Fighter Doctrine.

7. It was the stimulus to air leaders who were later to develop these doctrines. The result was the jet fighter's role as a deterrent with it's nuclear and worldwide capability.

8. The P-51s replaced the P-38s mostly for economical reasons and ease of production and training, not because of a significant difference of performance.

9. That operational problems were resolved to a highly satisfactory degree and gave the P-38 advantages that no other fighter of the time had.

10. That each problem, such as compressibility, supercharger regulators, single generators, cockpit heat,intercoolers, electric propellors, and others, were very interesting, previously unencountered,interrelated, and often suffered from production priorities and plain bad luck.

11. That pilot training was unusual compared with single-engine fighter training.

12. That Lockheed's close factory-support program has been viewed out of context. Problems were magnified where in competitive cases there was no one around to freely admit to the problem and then attempt to solve it.

13. That those who write on the subject fail to counsel with Tony LeVier or even bother to read his fine book, Pilot.

14. That an in-depth combat evaluation seldom, if ever, appears in print.

I offer any aid at my limited means that this proposal be born.


-- Arthur W. Heiden, 79th.FS, 20th.FG


And from Q & A: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/20questions.html


Q.: We spoken before about the differences between the Lightning and the Mustang, is it true that many pilots were really gung ho about the Mustang and it helped to boost morale...

AWH: For most of us, the P-38 was our first love and in many ways a test of our manhood. To most of us, the P-51 transition was just something new and exciting. Col. Wilson gave us a good sales job and it was a modern aircraft, modern systems, and a new challenge. It had gained a great reputation by the time we got them. All the conversation was just so much BS that floats around. Doubt that anyone realized how the flood of P-51's and pilots would become so significant. The thoughtless crap we endured in print, after the war, was what stirred up old P-38 pilots. You, Corey, Carlo and JJ (members of a e-mail list that features several webmasters, aviation writers and USAAF/USAF veterans, including Capt. Heiden) have forced a reanalysis that even we were not getting deep enough into. I am excited about this and am impatiently waiting on the things in the works.

Q.: Did you have any time to get acquainted with the P-51 when the transition happened? Was there any apprehension about going from the added safety margin of a twin-engined aircraft to a single?

AWH: We did have a short time to get familiar with the P-51, but it was fun. We liked the Merlin engine and its ability to take 61"HG for extended periods, the new K-14 "no miss um" gun sight grew on us, the comfort, 7 hour missions were hard on the rear but extended our world and feeling of usefulness. The one engine business crossed our minds, especially over the North Sea, but wasn't a big deal. The accusation that the 51 had more range, well, countered with the fact of not having 38L's and 300gal tanks (3 hours more) in the ETO made that argument stupid.


Message Edited on 09/05/0304:57AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 07:25 AM
Again, thank you for visiting the 20th Fighter Group website. Capt. Heiden was a Flight Leader with the 79thFS and he later went on to become an instructor before the war ended. At the time he retired he had 25,000 hours in the air and to this day he is still loves the P-38 above all the other aircraft he flew.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:21 PM
I do not know where guys are getting the idea that you rolled the yoke over and the 38 just sat there. it would have to have come from early 38s with out the benifit of power boosted ailerons.

buy one of lefty gardners videos or the roaring glory video with jeff ethell and you will see that the plane snaps into a roll as soon as the ailerons are deflected. both planes are L models

one trick that experienced P-38 pilots used was to chop the throttle of the engine that you were rolling into, this caused the 38 to explode into a roll. I have seen it in a video and also bong is stated to have used this to make his plane roll faster. this is in victory roll by wolf

with the boosted ailerons the 38 rolls at over 100 degrees per second


at 150 mph ias the 38 is a poor roller
at 250 mph ias the 38 is a fair roller
at 300 mph and above the 38 out rolls most ww 2 aircraft with the power boosted ailerons