PDA

View Full Version : Which plane would win the p38 or the spit?



frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 07:45 PM
I say the p38.

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 07:45 PM
I say the p38.

HellToupee
02-03-2004, 07:49 PM
i say the spit

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 07:51 PM
P38 all the way man.Besides its american built.

necrobaron
02-03-2004, 07:55 PM
Both are excellent planes. I think it would all come down to which varients are involved and the skill of the pilots.....

"Not all who wander are lost."

SkyChimp
02-03-2004, 07:57 PM
It depends. What would all the P-38's squadmates be doing?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 07:58 PM
Does anyone have a list of mods on these birds.Now I know they both packed 20mm cannon's.But who bore more of em

necrobaron
02-03-2004, 08:00 PM
....of course I'm assuming this hypothetical engagement would be one on one.

"Not all who wander are lost."

resev
02-03-2004, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
P38 all the way man.Besides its american built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And thats exactly what i was expecting from someone such as yourself, to choose a comparision craft................because its American............. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Future-
02-03-2004, 08:01 PM
I'd say the plane with the better pilot wins!

At least, in this case.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

JG7_Rall
02-03-2004, 08:01 PM
It's really the pilot. The spit will turn circles around the P-38 easy, but I *think* the P-38, in general, is a bit faster and probably dives a bit better, so he could extend and reengage at will. Both planes are pretty well armed, but the P-38 requires no convergeance so it REALLY takes care of buisness, while the spit makes it so you gotta be a bit more picky with ranges.

I'd say it'd be a good fight! I bet on the spit, tho.

resev
02-03-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by necrobaron:
....of course I'm assuming this hypothetical engagement would be one on one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 vs 1?

........poor P-38....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 08:06 PM
Well wait a minute there both great planes.Heck Yes RESVE one vs One.I think the first pilot to gain alt over the other wins.

horseback
02-03-2004, 08:06 PM
Spitfire had more cannon, one in each wing, but most Spits were built with the 'b' or 'c' wings, which both featured a total of 4 .303s.

The big advantage of the Lightning would be that its single 20mm cannon had four .50 cal buddies all packed into the nose, which relieved the pilot of convergence issues: anything that got in front of that firepower would be shredded in short order.

The Spit would want to get in close, while I imagine the Lightning would probably prefer to throw its punch from a little further away, although its slow speed maneuverability with a skilled driver would shock most guys who rode Spitfires to work. I know it shocked a lot of Oscar and Zero drivers.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Weather_Man
02-03-2004, 08:08 PM
Depends which one I'm flying. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

DangerForward
02-03-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
I say the p38.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say the Spit. From the IX on it's one of the best dogfighters of the war. The P38 is more versatile though.

And I'm err...American built...

DangerForward

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 08:16 PM
This will unsettled until that day that most of us will get that prized gem expansion pack.I will fly both.But i will leave my chei to feel what plane suits me

LeadSpitter_
02-03-2004, 08:20 PM
depends who the pilot was

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 08:22 PM
We will see

Oso2323
02-03-2004, 08:27 PM
Here's an idea - read the old RAF development documents wherre they actually (gasp) compared a Spit (IX?) to a lightning. Test pilot W/C Hugh Godfrey mentioned it in his book.

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 08:35 PM
well., you going to leave me hangin what did godfrey say?

Oso2323
02-03-2004, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
well., you going to leave me hangin what did godfrey say?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have the book with me, but a lot of it involved a humourous anecdote where another Brit test pilot claimed that the p-38 out-turned the Spit. Godfrey smelled a rat, went up with the two planes and proved him wrong. The American pilots were happy with this as it prevented them from adopting the wrong tactics.

frag_bravo
02-03-2004, 08:51 PM
Cool We shall all see.Im seeing a lot of people going to fly the famous spit.I in turn will fly the p-38,just as I fly the p39.I think this will be most exceting.

dugong
02-03-2004, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
I say the p38.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will take the aircraft with the best skins!

Korolov
02-03-2004, 10:43 PM
If the P-38 is a veteran pilot with a lot of time on the plane, you can be sure that he'd be pretty hard for the Spitfire pilot to defeat.

Nevertheless, the Spitfire has the simpliest advantage - it can just turn. While the P-38 requires more experience and patience to be used.

More or less, I'd say it'd be a draw.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
02-03-2004, 11:54 PM
The 38 could just run away til the spit ran out of gas.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

GoodKn1ght
02-04-2004, 12:09 AM
the plane im piloting wins even if it was american built.

"Friends don't let friends fly arcade"

pourshot
02-04-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
the plane im piloting wins even if it was american built.

"Friends don't let friends fly arcade"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My god some people are arrogant. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

cd.jakevas
02-04-2004, 12:27 AM
I think it might be something more than arrogance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by cd.jakevas on Tue February 03 2004 at 11:58 PM.]

resev
02-04-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoodKn1ght:
the plane im piloting wins even if it was american built.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My god some people are arrogant. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You'l get used to it real fast.
He thinks he's some sort of hot sh!t pilot because he currently holds the number 1 spot on that GreatGreen thingamajig, or whatever its called.

I don't even recall the kid ever even flying with us old sticks.
Quite frankly, i don't think we would give him the time of day for putting him on his place, in fact, most of us only post on CWOS nowadays, so they would not even be interested in a good old can of UBI snot nosed asswhoop.

Just leave him be and carry on, you know the old adage:

"Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience".

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

pourshot
02-04-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "Never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Or how about this one "I would love to start a battle of wit's with you but you look a little low on ammo" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

biggs222
02-04-2004, 12:36 AM
ok, what i think.
P38 was faster up to 30mph then the mkV (P38 says it does 360 @5000ft, and 414mph @25000)
P38 will out climb mkV
mkV will outturn P38 (plus out roll P38?)

P38 and LFmkIX were pretty much equal in speed (mkIX does 375mph @13000ft and 410@ 21000ft)
not sure if the P38 will out climb mkIX so i say about even
and i think the mkIX will out roll the P38

so the mkV may have problems against the P38 but i think the mkIX will be a match, if not more then a match for it....but just to be safe ill say "depends on pilot" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

btw im a spitfan, or for those of u who hate spitfans im a spit whiner.

Tempestate
02-04-2004, 12:42 AM
I do think its arrogance.... agree with Pourshot... Don't see anything indicating its a joke which is a worry

When I was reading "JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" it seems that the German pilots certainly knew what to do with a lightning

"Of the three american Fighters, the p51 Mustang was still a very much unknown quantaty to the Germans; at years beginning (1944) it equiped only a single group. The P38 Lightning was flown by two groups. Its size and unique appearance made it easy to spot, and to stalk or avoid, as appropriate. The only feature of the Lightning that impressed the Germans was its heavy, concentrated armament. The most numerous American escort fighter was the P47 Thunderbolt, which equipped ten groups. When flown by an experienced pilot, the "jug" had proved able to hold its own at high altitude against any German fighter"

From JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe by Donald L. Caldwell

Indianer.
02-04-2004, 12:45 AM
The Spit. Although I'm looking forward to flying them both so I can make my mind up.

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

Rajvosa
02-04-2004, 01:04 AM
Given equally skilled pilots, the P-38 would not stand a chance against any of the Spits, starting from Mk IX. Spits can outturn, outroll and outclimb it and are NOT slower than the P-38. Mk IX is approzximately equally fast as P-38L, around 660-670 km/h. Spit Mk XIV has a top speed of 720 km/h. P-38 could outdive it, but would sooner or later run out of altitude to hide in. And than, it's bye bye.
Face it, Spit is a dogfighter per excellence.

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v (Rest In Pieces!)

madsarmy
02-04-2004, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
depends who the pilot was

Lead if you were in a Storch with a hand gun you could still shoot them down!
You're right it is the pilot.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/fbscreenshots/images/0-picture.jpg

"LOOK MUM NO HANDS!"

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:21 AM
If I remember, a Spit IX pilot came over to show the P-38 pilots some air-2-air tactics. The P-38 and Spit IX went 1 on 1, and the Spit could NOT get the P-38 off its tail! The Spit pilot left without landing. This was whitnessed by many people on the ground (who the demo was for) and documented well. Can anyone bring this up?

Gib

necrobaron
02-04-2004, 01:30 AM
I must admit I find it a little hard to believe that a P-38 can turn(with flaps deployed) with a Zero but not a Spit? Was the Spitfire really a better turn fighter than the Zero?

"Not all who wander are lost."

Menthol_moose
02-04-2004, 01:39 AM
Who ever spots the other guy first.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Rajvosa
02-04-2004, 01:40 AM
P-38 could turn with the Zero?!? This is the oposite from everything I have ever heard!

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v (Rest In Pieces!)

Tempestate
02-04-2004, 01:40 AM
I do not think the spit was a better dogfighter than the Zero. But it held its own around Burma near the end of the war.

lcolin
02-04-2004, 06:45 AM
Just an indication of average wing loading :
Spitfire #30lb/sq.ft
P38 #53lb/sq.ft
Zero #22lb/sq.ft
That's not a 100% rule, but with all other parameters equal, that makes the difference.

zero and spit will surely win any dogfight against a p-38 from low to medium altitude or speed.

At high altitude or high speed, other factors like compressibility could turn the chances, but the spit should be a logical winner.

VW-IceFire
02-04-2004, 07:01 AM
I have read that the P-38 could win some stall fights because of its dosile stall (the counter rotating props?) and good low speed ability in general. Still I don't think turn fighting a Zero is a good idea...

The other problem with this argument is which Spitfire (or which Lightning?). Big difference in speed (and firepower) and performance between a Mark Vb and a Mark XIVe. All things considered, both were effective aircraft...the Spit I'd give a slight advantage to in a straight up dogfight but if you want to compair capabilities (which is often more important) than the Lightning takes the cake for versatility.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Metallicaner
02-04-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
P38 all the way man.Besides its american built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>why does it matter to you if it's american built or not?

oFZo
02-04-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
P38 all the way man.Besides its american built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which doesn't mean jack.

-oFZo
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigHolland.gif
Founding member and Offical Keeper of The Herbs of the Eurotrolls.

"The Lord is coming. Look busy."

oFZo
02-04-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Metallicaner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
P38 all the way man.Besides its american built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>why does it matter to you if it's american built or not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably so "patriottic" (more like brainwashed) he thinks anything US will beat anything non-US.

He is a son of a silly person and I fart in his general direction. I might even have my goldfish pee on him from a great height.

(Don't take it black/white, I'm no US hater)

-oFZo
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigHolland.gif
Founding member and Offical Keeper of The Herbs of the Eurotrolls.

"The Lord is coming. Look busy."

Korolov
02-04-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Which doesn't mean jack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it means bias. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-04-2004, 07:42 AM
horseback wrote:
"Spitfire had more cannon, one in each wing, but most Spits were built with the 'b' or 'c' wings, which both featured a total of 4 .303s."

Or the E wing, featuring one of:
1x20mm, 2x.303
1x20mm, 1x0.50
2x20mm

A common late war combination would have
been a total of 2 20mm, 2 0.50, which is
pretty much even Stevens with the P38
(the Spit armament a little more powerful,
but with convergence issues).

The P38 should have a good advantage in
climb over pretty much all Spitfire versions.

Dive - probably an initial P38 advantage,
changing over to the Spitfire ultimately,
I would imagine.

p1ngu666
02-04-2004, 08:57 AM
yeah the spit would win the highspeed stuff
compressablity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
spitfire climbed like a rocket i think, interceptor 109 style
better pilot would win http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
02-04-2004, 08:58 AM
on noise, the spit would win. merlin=omghax how lovely
alison= :\

WOLFMondo
02-04-2004, 09:17 AM
Merlin &gt; Griffon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What a nice sound.

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

hop2002
02-04-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P38 should have a good advantage in
climb over pretty much all Spitfire versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38J or L should have a climb rate of just over 3,700 ft/min, the Spitfire LF IX (main production version from the begining of 1943 onwards) 4,700 ft/min.

The P-38 should have an initial dive acceleration advantage, but has a very low limiting mach speed. For example, the P-38 was limited to 360 mph IAS at 20,000ft, the Spitfire to 440 mph IAS. At 30,000ft, the P-38 was limited to 290, the Spit to about 380 (manual gives 25 - 30k 390, 30 - 35k 340)

Level speed should be similar (with a slight advantage to the P-38) up to 23,000ft or so,
above that the P-38 should have an advantage.

Tunr performance goes to the Spit IX, as does practical roll performance. Sustained roll rate was good on the P-38 with powered ailerons, but roll acceleration was still poor.

By the time the P-38L arrived, the Spitfire XIV was available.the Spit XIV should have a decided speed advantage over the P-38L at all altitudes, btween 20 and 30 mph faster, depending on altitude.

The Spit XIV will have the same climb rate advantage over the P-38 as the Spit IX. Same goes for turn and roll.

horseback
02-04-2004, 10:17 AM
Actually, the Spitfires prior to the MK XIV climbed like Mustangs, not rockets. Designed to be an interceptor, the Lightning had a superb climb & accelleration, particularly when its size and endurance is considered, and it was somewhat superior to the Merlin engined Spits in those regards. The Griffon engined Spits were a bit better in this climb and accelleration, but I couldn't say if they were superior to the late model J or L P-38s.

Taking the opinion of a pilot who spent seven or eight years of Spitfire experience and less than 40 hours flying the Lightning (or vice versa) as Gospel is not my idea of seeking an unbiased opinion.

The only way to judge the issue is learning the results of head-to-head 'flyoffs' between pilots with long experience in the type. The Lightning required a more extended learning period to be fully exploited in combat than most types.

The initial uses of the Lightning in the ETO were fraught with technical problems, and the pilots were not very well trained in their aircraft before being committed to combat. This may explain the lower opinion the LW had of the type there, although the guys who faced it in N. Africa and the Med, against the 1st FG, a group experienced in the type, had a much better opinion of it.

About my comments on the agility of the Lightning; it was surprisingly quick to turn in either direction, and it was preached in the ETO that it could out-turn either the 109 or 190 quite easily, particularly below 6000m. As for turning with the Japanese types, with that kind of firepower in the nose, you didn't have to stay with their turns very long.

The Spitfire Squadrons in the Pacific learned the hard way that they couldn't fight the Japanese the way you fought the Germans. The Spit employed Boom & Zoom tactics successfully in the Pacific and CBI. Turning and burning led to perforations in the airframe...and the pilot.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Oso2323
02-04-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I remember, a Spit IX pilot came over to show the P-38 pilots some air-2-air tactics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might be referring to my Hugh Godfrey incident (as described above). The first Spit pilot definitely lost against the p-38. But as Godfrey later proved, it was the pilot, not the plane.

Godfrey was assigned to the air development unit (or whatever it was called) in between tours. So his observations must be officially documented somewhere. BTW, he also flew the Spit ix vs. the first captured 190. Funny quote (or paraphrase): "We didn't even bother to check the turn rates as there wasn't a German plane that even came close to the Spit."

hop2002
02-04-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually, the Spitfires prior to the MK XIV climbed like Mustangs, not rockets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit IX and onwards climbed like rockets. The Spit F IX, from June 42, climed at about 3,700 ft /min. The Spit LF IX, from late 42/early 43 climbed at 4,700 ft min. The only in-service plane at the time that could hope to match that was the 109. (afaik). The Lightning was not even close.

Korolov
02-04-2004, 10:57 AM
The Spitfire Mk IX took 5.7 minutes to climb to 20,000ft (6100m). The Lightning took 7 minutes to get that high. Definately in the Spit's favor.

However, that is the overall purpose of the Spitfire. While the Lightning may be a slower climber, it can stay up and loiter vastly longer than the Spitfire could ever hope to. Thats a very important issue. While on alert, a Spitfire might have to land and refuel, thus giving the enemy a opportunity to nail it on the ground. The Lightning can stay in the air longer than the P-51 could.

So, while the Spitfire would definately win as a exceptional dogfighter and superb home defense plane, it would lag behind as a offensive plane that could take the fight to the enemy and stay in touch with ground forces long enough to provide support. A better competitor would be the Tempest, which had the range, speed, climb rate and firepower to be a multipurpose plane like the Lightning.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Snoop_Baron
02-04-2004, 11:27 AM
Is that 7min climb starting with a full fuel load? How well would it climb if it started with a smaller fuel load say enough to get the same air time as the spit?

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 11:44 AM
This is so foolish. I think it goes without saying that the Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the P-38. However, the P-38 was a more versatile aircraft, so applying the words "better" or "superior" to either plane in general is silly.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

resev
02-04-2004, 11:50 AM
You have to keep things in prespective at all times.

First of all, comparing allied aircrafts can be very tricky, because after all, they weren't designed to meet each other in combat, instead, what realy matters was how did they behave against the enemies aircrafts.

Think about it like this.
The P-38 is a powerhouse, with a good amount of wing loading and high engine torque (Nm2) to hold its energy very well in a sustained prolonged fight, but even so, what realy matters is how the pilot would take a momentaneous advantage over the adversary.
An opening of less than one second is all it would take for the P-38 to ravage pretty much any enemy.
In that less than one second opening, the pilot just had to squeeze the master trigger with all weapons groups activated at the saem time, and thats the last time the enemy will bother him, but the marrow of the subject, is for the P-38 to gain the first merge advantage.
Withour that first merge advantage, the 38 will have to mess and fumble a lot to put himself in a favorable position again, but make no mistake, if the 38 has the first merge advantage, than the combat will be over for the adversary, regardless of whom it may be.
The 38 might not be a supa dupa nimble fighter, largely due to its excessive size, but if he gets the 6 of an enemy, he will stay there for the rest of the fight.
If the enemy climbs, the pilot will follow, if the enemy dives, the pilot will follow, if the enemy turns, the pilot will follow, etc.
All that realy matters, is having the advantage of the first merge, and doing its best to get that less than one second open range shot, and then its over, regardless of how good the enemy might be.


The Spit is a formidable nimble fighter.
It can climb, turn, dive, like nobody biz at pretty much any height the enemy might decide to take that battle to.
Riding a combat Spit is a full trottle white knuckle ride.
Its armament, and especialy the configuration of that armament, is extremely adequate for a sparrow battle.
It doesn't even matter if the first merge is unsucesfull, because that nimble glider, coupled to a breather engine, and very strong energy retention caracteristic, will get it ready for a second advantage merge with only a few pull\pushing of the control stick, with no serious consequences for the pilot's health.
Nevertheless, the rule of thumb still applies, if the Spit gets the early advantage, there will be no single enemy that we'l get it off his back.
But with the Spit, this goes even further to the superlative, because unlike the 38, it can take the smallest window gaps to just pot shot the enemy, until he destroys them.
The battle can even last for a long time, because neither the pilot or the aircraft are likely to give up that first merge, and stay there indefenattly, allways gaining small advantages wich each maneuver, until the smallests windows of oportunity sart apearing, and for this to happen, its only a matter of time.


The whole point for this is, the aircraft that gets the first sucessfull merge, will quite likely win the fight.
The brass tacks is, the P-38 needs its first merge sucessfull to retain advantage, while the Spit, if the first merge is lost, it can quickly return for a second go, but if the 38 gets on his back, the most probable thing to happen is that he won't have enogh time to disengage until the 38 has its window of oportunity, on the other hand, if a Spit gets behind a 38, he will stay there for as long as he wishes, until he himself will get enough firing chances.


There is no obvious winner, but then again, neither aircrafts was designed to battle one another.


All it takes to make a correct judgement, is not to compare the aircrafts caracteristics, but to compare the fighter tactics and operational combat proficiency.


Cheers.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Korolov
02-04-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
Is that 7min climb starting with a full fuel load? How well would it climb if it started with a smaller fuel load say enough to get the same air time as the spit?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those numbers are for the default loaded weight. The P-38L could carry 424 gallons of fuel maximum internal, and two 300 gallon drop tanks. So if you gave yourself only 25% internal fuel, you'd get a range of roughly 225 miles (maximum total range, "ferry range" was 2,600 miles) and 75% weight savings. Internal fuel range was about 900 miles.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

hop2002
02-04-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While the Lightning may be a slower climber, it can stay up and loiter vastly longer than the Spitfire could ever hope to. Thats a very important issue. While on alert, a Spitfire might have to land and refuel, thus giving the enemy a opportunity to nail it on the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat air patrols weren't that long. The Spit has endurance of about 3 hours with a drop tank fitted, more in some versions. Escorts might have been longer, because of the ranges involved, but CAPs generally weren't. Endurance isn't really a factor in CAP over/close to friendly territory. You just rotate squadrons. Either way, the pilots spend the same amount of time in the air.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, while the Spitfire would definately win as a exceptional dogfighter and superb home defense plane, it would lag behind as a offensive plane that could take the fight to the enemy and stay in touch with ground forces long enough to provide support.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allied tactical forces were based on the continent just behind the front lines. There were airstrips operating in Normandy within days of the landings.

Range for a Spitfire without droptanks was approx 450 miles. As an example of the ranges in Europe, Patton didn't take Metz until 23rd Nov 44, almost 6 months after Normandy. Metz was 275 miles from Normandy, so for Spitfires to be based close enough at all times would require rebasing once, maybe twice, in 6 months.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A better competitor would be the Tempest, which had the range, speed, climb rate and firepower to be a multipurpose plane like the Lightning.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempest actually had similar range to the Spitfire on internal fuel. The Spitfire of course had similar or better speed than the Lightning, better climb, and similar firepower to the Lightning.

The only areas the Lightning beats the Spit are range and bombload.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is that 7min climb starting with a full fuel load? How well would it climb if it started with a smaller fuel load say enough to get the same air time as the spit?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The best figures I can find for the P-38J are 5.9 mins to 20,000ft. I presume 7 mins is at military power.

That's with 300 gallons of fuel.

The Spit IX carried 102 US gallons inernally (normally, some carried more)

The Lightning of course had two engines, of similar horsepower, approx twice the drag, and more than twice the weight.

If you assume the Lightning needed twice the fuel for the same range, then the Lightning can reduce fuel load by 100 gallons, or 600lbs.

That reduces weight from 16,415 lbs to 15,800 lbs (forget the 15lbs)

That's a reduction of about 3.5%. again being generous, say 4%. That should increase climb rate, and reduce time to climb, by slightly more than 4%. Say 5% faster climb and lower time to climb.

A 5% reduction from 5.9 mins (5 mins 54 secs) is 5 mins 36 secs.

The Spitfire LF IX, the major production version, climbed to 20,000ft in 4 mins 45 secs.

That's an average climb rate of 4210 ft/min for the Spit to 20,000ft, 3570 ft/min for the P-38.

Korolov
02-04-2004, 01:08 PM
Sounds about right to me. Now the next question is, how well do they work as a team? Thats the important thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:25 PM
I can testify to this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:

btw im a spitfan, or for those of u who hate spitfans im a spit whiner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
02-04-2004, 01:39 PM
I think the important thing is that the p38 is a complex airplane - with alot of potential and great dependance on pilot skill - in the right hands I think it is probably the equal of most any prop driven a/c of ww2 - particularly when compaired to the p51, p47 and others in the american or german inventory.
This makes it a plane with possibilities - and perhaps a broader range along the scale of 'absolutely sucks to excellent'.
Everybody knows the spit is a great fighter - after all; even the brits could fly it well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GoodKn1ght
02-04-2004, 01:47 PM
on a serious note, if i remember correctly, the p38 has a very low stall speed. this would mean that a spit could be defeated in a slow speed scissors fight.

"Friends don't let friends fly arcade"

AaronGT
02-04-2004, 04:40 PM
Right you are, hop. For some
reason I had correctly remembered
the climb rate of the P38 but had
misremembered that of the
Spitfire IX as around 3000 ft/min.
Maybe that is an earlier mark.

The loiter period of the P38 was
an important consideration for
CAP of the USA and US dominions,
which is what it was designed for.
Long borders and large distances
favour long CAPs (if arduous ones)

The P38 nearly ended up with
23mm or 37mm cannon too.

SkyChimp
02-04-2004, 06:21 PM
Could the Spit outurn and outroll the P-38? Maybe at lower speeds. But my understanding is is that the Spit suffered from high stick forces at speeds much over 250mph which seriously effected its roll and manueverability. The heavy ailerons at high speeds persisted at least through the XIV models - thus the efforts to come up with a system that reduced stick forces (for instance..ailerons on (IIRC) piano hinges, etc). The P-38 was not known to have high control forces, and elevators were always good.

Tests of the Spitfire MkI (IIRC) showed that the ailerons were "almost immovable at speeds above 300 mph." Were the wings and ailerons of the IX substantially different than the I? Was there a different aileron? Different mechanical advantage? I don't think there was.

The P-38J-25 on had a great roll rate, 90 dps at 350 mph TAS and increasing to 100 dps at 400 mph TAS. Roll acceleration at higher speeds was not really an issue. Getting it started at lower speeds was.

The P-38L-5-LO (the most numerous varient) was no slouch in climb (combat power) either, reaching 5,000 feet in just over 1 minute, 10000 feet in 2.5 minutes, 15000 feet in 3.7 minutes, and 20000 feet in 5 minutes.

IMO, the Spitfire would have been the better low speed dogfighter. It's advanatges would have been lessened as speeds increased. Of course, it simply cannot compare in range or versatility to the P-38.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Wed February 04 2004 at 05:29 PM.]

p1ngu666
02-04-2004, 06:45 PM
its important to remmber spit grew up in the bob, radar etc.
they didnt need todo cap, infact they did very very little if i remmber, being on standby from before till dusk etc very tireing.
radar ment u wentup when needed, didnt need range http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. for america boarder partrol u neeed randge, for sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

spit had better elivators than 109 too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pourshot
02-04-2004, 07:00 PM
I think you will find that the mkI's ailerons were infact fabric covered and this was the problem with them being solid at speed.It was fixed at the start of the BoB and If it's roll you want then compare the clipped spit to the p38 it roll's almost as fast as the 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

hop2002
02-04-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tests of the Spitfire MkI (IIRC) showed that the ailerons were "almost immovable at speeds above 300 mph." Were the wings and ailerons of the IX substantially different than the I? Was there a different aileron? Different mechanical advantage? I don't think there was.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire I and early Mk V used fabric covered ailerons, which gave very poor roll rate at high speeds. From sometime in spring/summer 41, metal ailerons were used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38J-25 on had a great roll rate, 90 dps at 350 mph TAS and increasing to 100 dps at 400 mph TAS. Roll acceleration at higher speeds was not really an issue. Getting it started at lower speeds was.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roll acceleration is an issue at all speeds, although less at higher speeds, because the increased airflow provides extra force.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38J-25 on had a great roll rate, 90 dps at 350 mph TAS and increasing to 100 dps at 400 mph TAS. Roll acceleration at higher speeds was not really an issue. Getting it started at lower speeds was.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What altitude are those figures at? Rollrates are usually given in IAS to minimise the differences with altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38L-5-LO (the most numerous varient) was no slouch in climb (combat power) either, reaching 5,000 feet in just over 1 minute, 10000 feet in 2.5 minutes, 15000 feet in 3.7 minutes, and 20000 feet in 5 minutes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are those figures from? Is it http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html ?

If so, bear in mind those figures are achieved with 1,725 hp per engine from Lockheed's tests. I've never seen anyone provide evidence that power setting was ever approved for use.

Maximum authorised power was 1600 hp per engine, climb rate somewhere below 3,800 ft/min.

The same goes for the speed chart that accompanies the climb rate chart, it's for 1,725 hp per engine, and from Lockheed tests not independent government tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IMO, the Spitfire would have been the better low speed dogfighter. It's advanatges would have been lessened as speeds increased. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking at the roll rate chart at http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html the P-38 seems to exceed the P-51 roll performance just before the point at which the P-51 exceeds the Fw190 roll rate.

That means it's only superior in roll at speeds above which the P-51 is superior in roll to the 190, which means not really in most combats. The 190 was known as the best roller because it was best at normal combat speeds. It's worth bearing in mind the A&AEE reported the Spitfire as a slightly better roller than the Mustang, which means they thought the much lower speeds where the Spitfire beat the Mustang were more important.

Looking at the Naca chart, at 20,000ft the P-38 only beats the Mustang at 450 mph+, which is of course considerably faster than they could go in level flight at that altitude. And that's ignoring the effects of roll acceleration.

For escort and ground attack there's no comparison. The P-38 can go much further, anc carry far more ordinance, and has more ammunition capacity for straffing. For air to air combat I don't think there's much comparison either though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
02-04-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Spitfire I and early Mk V used fabric covered ailerons, which gave very poor roll rate at high speeds. From sometime in spring/summer 41, metal ailerons were used.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, stick forces were high in the Spitfire series. Even our favored book on the subject Spitfire... Morgan and Shacklady contends that, and details some of things done to try an alleviate the problem.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Roll acceleration is an issue at all speeds, although less at higher speeds, because the increased airflow provides extra force.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't considered as big an issue at higher speeds as it was at lower speeds. That's point I am making.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What altitude are those figures at? Rollrates are usually given in IAS to minimise the differences with altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10,000 feet. It was only a little less at 20,000 feet. I'll post the chart.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Where are those figures from? Is it http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html ?

If so, bear in mind those figures are achieved with 1,725 hp per engine from Lockheed's tests. I've never seen anyone provide evidence that power setting was ever approved for use.

Maximum authorised power was 1600 hp per engine, climb rate somewhere below 3,800 ft/min.

The same goes for the speed chart that accompanies the climb rate chart, it's for 1,725 hp per engine, and from Lockheed tests not independent government tests.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1,600 hp was developed at 3,000 rpm.

However, according to Vee's For Victory: The story Of the Allison V-1710... Daniel Whitney, Schiffer Books, page 273
states that Allison approved the engine to be operated at 3200 rpm (developing 1,725 hp), though the USAAF did not. We all know how well USAAF pilots and ground crews followed the rules.

Additionally, the 1,600 hp (and 1,725 hp) ratings were on 100/130 fuel IIRC. Tweaking the engine to generate a higher manifold pressure (increased hp) to take advantage of the greater capabilities of 150 grade fuel certainly would not have hurt. I don't have figures for the V-1710-111/113 on 150 grade fuel.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Looking at the roll rate chart at http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html the P-38 seems to exceed the P-51 roll performance just before the point at which the P-51 exceeds the Fw190 roll rate.

That means it's only superior in roll at speeds above which the P-51 is superior in roll to the 190, which means not really in most combats. The 190 was known as the best roller because it was best at normal combat speeds. It's worth bearing in mind the A&AEE reported the Spitfire as a slightly better roller than the Mustang, which means they thought the much lower speeds where the Spitfire beat the Mustang were more important.

Looking at the Naca chart, at 20,000ft the P-38 only beats the Mustang at 450 mph+, which is of course considerably faster than they could go in level flight at that altitude. And that's ignoring the effects of roll acceleration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your NACA chart shows the unboosted P-38. I have a chart for the J and L models with boosted ailerons. I'll post it.

I will disagree with you here about combat speeds. Clearly, the USAAF knew that speed was life and endeavored to fight at higher speeds. The Bf-109 was well known to turn "better" than the Fw-190 at low speeds, but stiffen up considerably at higher speeds to the degree that the Fw-190 was considered more manueverable at high speeds. The USAAF recognized this. P-47 pilots reported regularly that in normal combat, they could outturn the Bf-109, but the Fw-190 was much toughter to beat. They had to be fighting fast to get this impression. USAAF doctrine was to keep speed up. And for the most part, pilots tried to do it. As the war went on, the plane that could fight fast was the better bet.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
For escort and ground attack there's no comparison. The P-38 can go much further, anc carry far more ordinance, and has more ammunition capacity for straffing. For air to air combat I don't think there's much comparison either though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Spitfire was probably better than the P-38 in air-to-air as well. But I also think the P-38 is underrated in this regard. It was fast, climb well, dived poorly and had good high speed manueverability. I don't think the Spitifire had good high speed manueverability. And no one can seriously deny that high speed manueverability was increasingly important as the war went on.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-04-2004, 07:59 PM
Hop:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/1.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-05-2004, 03:32 AM
High speed maneoverability tended to increase
for aircraft in the war, but I think on the
whole, apart from some exceptions in roll
rate where airflow plays a big part, overall
maneouverability of aircraft at typical combat
speeds probably reduced during WW2 as speeds
ramped up. That tends to suggest that
maneouverability was seen as less important than
speed (speed is life). Saying this, speed
confers maneouver options in the vertical, of
course, important factors being zoom climb
(how do the P38 and Spitfire compare on zoom
climb rather than sustained climb) and dive
performance (where the P38 has some challenges
at high speed).

Towards the end of the war we have some
fairly successful fighters which have
fairly indifferent maneouver capibilities at
high speed (Tempest V, Meteor, P80, Me262)
apart from the P80 roll, but high speed.

What does seem to increase is the armament
in WW2, for that first initial bounce, which
accounted for a large proportion of air
kills anyway. A heavy armament becomes
especially important if you are at high
speed as there is a greater chance that
closing speeds may be high.

Red_Storm
02-05-2004, 04:05 AM
I love it when Americans overrate their planes. They really believe it themselves. It's always good for a laugh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
02-05-2004, 04:39 AM
Would it not be a fairer argument to pick 1 particular spit model (XIV or IX?) and compare it to 1 particular p38 model (j?)? The early models of both planes are extremely different to the ones produced at the end of the war so...

Personally, I take the Spit, performance comparisons aside , it looks nicerhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

HellToupee
02-05-2004, 05:33 AM
pilots commented on the XIVs alerions as delightfully light.

The later marks had even better high speed manoverabilty.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

[This message was edited by HellToupee on Thu February 05 2004 at 04:48 AM.]

hop2002
02-05-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>10,000 feet. It was only a little less at 20,000 feet. I'll post the chart.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem I have with that chart is that it suggests roll performance is related to true air speed, rather than indicated air speed. Roll performance is always related to indicated air speed, in any plane.

I suspect they mean indicated rather than true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1,600 hp was developed at 3,000 rpm.

However, according to Vee's For Victory: The story Of the Allison V-1710... Daniel Whitney, Schiffer Books, page 273
states that Allison approved the engine to be operated at 3200 rpm (developing 1,725 hp), though the USAAF did not. We all know how well USAAF pilots and ground crews followed the rules.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it give a date? I suspect Allison and Lockheed knew the writing was on the wall for the P-38.

As to ignoring the official specs, given the problems the P-38 had encountered in Europe, I doubt they were modified, in Europe at least.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Additionally, the 1,600 hp (and 1,725 hp) ratings were on 100/130 fuel IIRC. Tweaking the engine to generate a higher manifold pressure (increased hp) to take advantage of the greater capabilities of 150 grade fuel certainly would not have hurt. I don't have figures for the V-1710-111/113 on 150 grade fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't the P-38 phased out of the 8th AF by summer 44? If so, it wouldn't have recieved 150 octane, which was only used by the 8th, and RAF ADGB and 2nd TAF.
I don't know if 115/145 was in use before the end in the pacific, but if so that might have allowed improved performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your NACA chart shows the unboosted P-38. I have a chart for the J and L models with boosted ailerons. I'll post it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NACA chart I have doesn't show the P-38 at all, as far as I can see. I was using this roll chart:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html

and trying to fit it into the well known NACA roll chart (from report 868 iirc)

The chart I just linked to says converted to true air speed. Assuming true air speed at sea level, it fits fairly well with the NACA chart.

For example, it shows the Fw190 and P-51 roll rates crossing at about 350 true, which at sea level would be 350 IAS. Roll performance increases slowly even when IAS stays the same as altitude increases, ie 350 IAS at sea level will give you slightly slower roll than 350 IAS at 10,000ft.

This chart shows Fw190 and P-51 crossing at just under 350 mph, the NACA chart just under 360. The actual degrees per second appear to be about 93 on the NACA chart, 88 on this chart.

Putting the boosted P-38 from this chart on the NACA chart, it outrolls the P-51 above about 350 IAS, and the Fw190 above about 360 IAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I will disagree with you here about combat speeds. Clearly, the USAAF knew that speed was life and endeavored to fight at higher speeds. The Bf-109 was well known to turn "better" than the Fw-190 at low speeds, but stiffen up considerably at higher speeds to the degree that the Fw-190 was considered more manueverable at high speeds. The USAAF recognized this. P-47 pilots reported regularly that in normal combat, they could outturn the Bf-109, but the Fw-190 was much toughter to beat. They had to be fighting fast to get this impression. USAAF doctrine was to keep speed up. And for the most part, pilots tried to do it. As the war went on, the plane that could fight fast was the better bet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but there's high speed and there's high speed. It looks like the P-38 will roll faster than the Mustang only at 350 ias and above. At 20,000ft, that's 45 mph IAS, 60 mph true faster than the P-51 can go all out. In other words, the P-38 outrolls the P-51 at 20K only above 480 mph true, and the Fw190 only above 490 - 500 true.

To emphasise this even more, at 20,000ft the P-38 rolls faster than the P-51 at 350, rolls faster than the Fw190 at 360, but is limited to 360 by it's low critical mach. So it outrolls the P-51 for only 10 mph of the possible speed range, and the Fw190 not at all.

At 30,000ft, the P-38 cannot outroll either because it can't go fast enough due to compression to reach the speeds where it's better than the P-51.

There are practical limits for WW2 fighters. They have very poor thrust to weight ratios in modern terms, and almost any manoeuvering bleeds energy. Typical combats take place at well below maximum level speed, not above it.

The ADFU tested the Spitfire against the Mustang. The Spitfire rolls better below 260 IAS, the Mustang above that. Yet the ADFU said "The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire".

The Spitfire should roll better than the P-38 at 20K up to around 280 IAS. The P-38s maximum speed at 20K in level flight is 290 IAS. Again, if the ADFU found the Spit had the advantage in roll, it will find a more decisive advantage for the Spit over the P-38.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the Spitfire was probably better than the P-38 in air-to-air as well. But I also think the P-38 is underrated in this regard. It was fast, climb well, dived poorly and had good high speed manueverability. I don't think the Spitifire had good high speed manueverability. And no one can seriously deny that high speed manueverability was increasingly important as the war went on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it depends on your definition of high speed. There are speeds at which the Mustang outrolls the Fw190, yet the Fw190 is acknowledged to be the better roller. That's because nearly all the combat took place at speeds where the 190 had the roll advantage.

PBNA-Boosher
02-05-2004, 04:54 PM
Personally, I don't care who would win, because they never fought against each other! Why would they? Why, in WW2 would a British and American pilot fight to the death? Unless it was a mistake, I don't think it would ever have happended! That's final!

BTW, for future reference, when someone says American made, they mean redundancy in design. This redundancy is what allows our designs to be so strong.America is known for producing such materials like this because of planes like the PBY, B-17, P-47, P-40, F-15, etc... However, just because it is well built does not mean it is American. the Ju-87 could take lots of hits and still bring its crew home, as could the He-111 and the Hawker Hurricane. Never underestimate the power of a good design. In a tough situation, it, plus the skill of the pilot, will bring your a$$ back home!

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The problem I have with that chart is that it suggests roll performance is related to true air speed, rather than indicated air speed. Roll performance is always related to indicated air speed, in any plane.

I suspect they mean indicated rather than true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They certainly don't mean indicated rather than true. Otherwise it wouldn't say on the chart that it was converted to TAS, and it wouldn't give different roll curves for different altitudes. I don't know why they did it that way, but I have noticed other later war charts that were the same way - like the NACA roll chart for P-80A jet fighter.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1,600 hp was developed at 3,000 rpm.
Does it give a date? I suspect Allison and Lockheed knew the writing was on the wall for the P-38.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No date.

And no doubt about it, the writing was on the wall. Even at the joint fighter conference pilots said the P-38 was obsolete as a fighter - and that was in November 1944.
I have a photo taken in February or March 1945 showing P-38Ls and P-80As on parallel assembly lines in the same plant. No way the P-38 would have lived beyond 1945.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As to ignoring the official specs, given the problems the P-38 had encountered in Europe, I doubt they were modified, in Europe at least.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problems mainly plaqued pre-J models. It is generally considered that the problems of engine reliability, turbo reliability and cockpit heat were worked out with the J and L models.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Wasn't the P-38 phased out of the 8th AF by summer 44? If so, it wouldn't have recieved 150 octane, which was only used by the 8th, and RAF ADGB and 2nd TAF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that the US 9th AF used 150 grade as well beginning in late 1944. No, I don't have a source, and I might be wrong. But I would suspect that if it were being supplied to 2nd TAC, the US 9th would get it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't know if 115/145 was in use before the end in the pacific, but if so that might have allowed improved performance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We know 115/145 certainly wasn't used in Europe. I know Neil Stirling stated it wasn't used in the Pacific either, but I've actually talked to a veteran US Navy Corsair pilot, and read in one source, that stated limited quantities were alotted to some carrier squadrons before the end of the war, presumably for kamikaze interceptors.



And you may be right about all the other stuff.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Korolov
02-05-2004, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
I love it when Americans overrate their planes. They really believe it themselves. It's always good for a laugh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, Japanese, German, Russian, and British don't overrate their planes either and believe it?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

horseback
02-05-2004, 08:48 PM
Koro, some people just lack an appreciation of the American art of exaggeration.

Example: I say, "the P-38 is so fv@king maneauverable, you could fly up your own @ss with it!"

Hearing this, a fellow Yank says "yeah, that's pretty maneauverable, all right," because he's playing the game, and reacting would not be cool(and it would lose him the verbal game).

A European hears the first statement and says "You Americans all think you're so big and so hot! Well you're NOT! So there!" because he only understands the dictionary meaning of the words, not the subtle social, political and cultural undercurrents, and thinks we're exaggerating in order to demean him or his country's stuff. If he understood the game, he'd try to top the exaggeration with something even more outrageous.

For instance:"Hah! Child's play! The YaK 3 could turn inside the orbit of a helium atom's electrons!"

Remember, the first one to laugh out loud loses.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944