PDA

View Full Version : Hey, Aerial Target



Slickun
06-29-2005, 05:06 PM
Aerial Target's sig is:

quote:
__________________
"The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain, cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38 J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the ****."

- Captain Arthur W. Heiden


I'm assuming that the pilot quoted believed this, and you do as well.

i believe this opinion about the P-39 matching the P-51 in everything to be in error. I covered this, extensively, in a previous thread titled something like "the uber P-38 thread".

It's this. At speeds above about mach .65 the P-38 was threatened by a deadly compressability. Dive flaps enabled the P-38 pilot to dive at angles of 45 degrees or so and still pull out, but only increased actual dive speeds by a few mph. Mach .65 was placarded in the cockpit. They did NOT suddenly allow the P-38 to enter controllable dives anywhere near the speeds contemporary late 1944 early 1945 planes in the ETO/MTO could reach, either side.

In fact, the P-38 had as low a top end as any plane in the ETO.

The P-51 flew, dove, maneuverd, and operated at speeds impossible for any P-38. P-51's didn't begin to compress until about mach .80.

What we have is a HUGE envelope of speed that the P-38 couldn't operate in, but that the P-51 was still deadly to the opposition in.

An edited version of the above was put into the thread about "P-38 speed in game". Gibbage suggested I debate this in another thread. I have no idea if Gibbage has some sort of authority in this, but it is a good idea. I deleted the other post.

Aerial Target, don't mean to call you out on this, or make you look bad. Just giving another take. The P-38 lates were fine airplanes, deserving to be put with the best planes of the war. But, the P-51 could dive at faster speeds.

Forgive the thread title, but I wanted to make sure you saw all this.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 06:23 PM
You make a valid argument. I disagree, however. I've read several pilot accounts which state that the P-38s with dive recovery flaps (what the game calls dive brakes) could dive with the Me-109s that used to split ess away. Now, a sustained dive is a dive that you can hold at the given angle from your ceiling to the minimum pullout altitude. I believe it also means full power. The manual does say that the maximum sustained dive angle is forty five degrees, but I believe that this is actually an attempt to get the pilots to err on the side of caution. Various aces exceeded the limits in sustained dives, one reporting six hundred miles per hour with no damage.

The P-38's pilot handbook was written very conservatively. They said that you must never roll into a dead engine or exceed this pitch and this bank on one engine. However, this was proven to be overcautious when entire flights of P-38 pilots in training feathered engines and performed mock dogfights, complete with one engined rolls and loops. Likewise, by upping the landing gear and raising the flaps to the maneuver position, single engined go-arounds were possible, contrary to what the manual states.

Although I cannot find a source now, I remember reading about two P-38s that actually hit the sound barrier. They both lost wings before doing so, and both were destroyed instantly when they did hit it, but one of the pilots ejected (this was post-war) when he saw the paint peel off, and survived. The P-51 Mustang, however, had a lower toleration of high speeds and gees, with tendency to shed wings (probably not as easily as in game, though).

Lastly, I do not believe that Captain Heiden's statement is one hundred percent correct. According to the NACA chart which is well circulated here, the P-51 was faster than the P-38 L in a roughly fourteen thousand foot window, from one thousand feet to fifteen thousand feet. There is also the debateable issue which you have brought up.

Captain Heiden tried to destroy the very pervasive, very false myth that the P-51 outclassed the P-38. I try to do so also.

Pirschjaeger
06-29-2005, 06:28 PM
I had noticed that quote too. I think there are a few points in that quote that are inaccurate but I don't really care to much about it. I look at it in a different way.

All to often we take what pilots have said or say as gospel. These people were and are only human, prone to error and subjectivity. I've seen in other threads where people post what a pilot had said about a certain plane and it's characteristics to support the poster's argument about the FM.

Many of these testimonies were made post war and sometimes 50 years after the fact. To be honest, I take what most WW2 pilots say with a grain of salt. What Heiden said is probably way off the mark and somewhat extremely inaccurate in comparison to what other pilots claim but I don't feel that what the majority are saying is worth banking on.

I'd rather stick to the results achieved in testing by the manufacturers, military, and the military who had captured the enemy's plane but at the same time they each have there own agendas. The manufacturer must sell it to the mlitary. The military must sell it to the public. The enemy who captures it must make it less valuable then their own, fr their public's sake.

I guess the best way is to sum up all the results and find the averages. This is the best we can do in my honest opinion. As for the pilots, I'll continue listening to it but it doesn't mean I'm buying it. This is in no way disrespect to the pilots who have served their countries. I'm simply realistic.

Fritz

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 06:31 PM
People have already been taught falsely regarding the P-38 by those who misused the P-38 and then wrote it off as mediocre. Neither evidence nor pilot accounts from either side will change the minds of ninety nine point nine percent of them.

As for pilots' memories, you have a point, one that is often made. However, I think I trust implicitly their memories of events and situations in which certain actions and aircraft abilities saved their lives. For example, I don't think anyone doubts a veteran's memory when he recalls that the P-51 was prone to a violent snap roll if stalled at high gees, while the P-38 was gentle and very controllable in the accelerated stall.

Pirschjaeger
06-29-2005, 06:42 PM
That's exactly my point Aerial Target; too much subjectivity. How many mediocre pilots have blamed their planes for their ineffectiveness as a pilot? How many aces praised their planes when really it was the pilot who was better than average? How many times were the questioned and interviewed after the war?

I can easily imagine after 3 years of flying the 109 and suddenly having it replaced with a 190 and complaining my new plane is ****. I know this because I and others in IL2 do this all the time. It's human nature to express ourselves but it's not human nature to be 100% accurate all the time.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
06-29-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

I don't think anyone doubts a veteran's memory when he recalls that the P-51 was prone to a violent snap roll if stalled at high gees, while the P-38 was gentle and very controllable in the accelerated stall.

I'd call that a "given" simply because many pilots have said the same thing. That's easy to take in. Essentially, it's just summing up the testimonies and finding an average but we have to have multiple testimonies to sum up in order to find an average. Sometimes it's only one opinion, or testimony.

BTW, since we are on the topic of the P-38, what was it good for? It's nice to fly in the sim and it looks good but I've found it's not good for d-fighting and likewise , online and offline, I've found it's pretty easy to defeat. What was it's design purpose and where did it shine when used in wartime?

Fritz

JG7_Rall
06-29-2005, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
That's exactly my point Aerial Target; too much subjectivity. How many mediocre pilots have blamed their planes for their ineffectiveness as a pilot? How many aces praised their planes when really it was the pilot who was better than average? How many times were the questioned and interviewed after the war?

I can easily imagine after 3 years of flying the 109 and suddenly having it replaced with a 190 and complaining my new plane is ****. I know this because I and others in IL2 do this all the time. It's human nature to express ourselves but it's not human nature to be 100% accurate all the time.

Fritz

Great post. I wholeheartedly agree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


People have already been taught falsely regarding the P-38 by those who misused the P-38 and then wrote it off as mediocre. Neither evidence nor pilot accounts from either side will change the minds of ninety nine point nine percent of them.

Maybe it's because I'm American, but I've never been "falsely taught" that the P-38 was mediocre in any way. In Europe the impression that I get is that it was a decent machine, but nowhere near as stellar as it was in the Pacific. I think any bad reputation it has received has honestly been because of IL2. I think the "Late" varient is an incredible plane and represents the 38 series much better. I also agree with your opinion that people think that because it's "as big as a boat that it must fly like one". I'm really happy that it's a great plane now because it's much more fun to fight against on WC; whereas before, I felt bad shooting one down because I felt like I was discouraging a dedicated pilot from flying their dream plane and encouraging them to switch to something like a spit in order to get kills.

Slickun
06-29-2005, 07:39 PM
I'm keeping this discussion in a narrow focus. The man's statement is erroneous.

So. The P-38 can dive at mach 1.0? Forgive me, but baloney. At around mach .84-.87 or so a prop became a dive brake and WW2 era planes couldn't go any faster.

The P-38 can dive with the P-51 and P-47, huh? All three had very rapid acceleration, reaching a rather slow mach .65 in seconds. Difference was, the P-38 pilot should have already had the dive recovery flaps out to ensure he didn't go much faster. The Jug and Pony wave bye bye, out of range in seconds continuing their dives to MUCH greater speeds. The P-51 still controllable up to its terminal speed somewhere around mach .80 or beyond. This is a no-brainer, a wipeout, a no contest.


I have no idea terminal velocity in the P-38, but much over mach .65 it went into compressability, became uncontrollable, tucked under, and crashed. The P-51 stayed controllable, out of compression, up to about mach .80. They were recovered from dives after reaching mach .83, 605 mph TAS, and were STILL controllable up to that point. No dive recovery flaps, no 45 degree restriction. Point it down and go, Boy. Discussions about weak wings etc are not pertinent. P-51's dove flat out, caught 109's and 190's all war long.

The dive brakes/recovery flaps were put in so that pilots could recover from dives near the .65 limit safely, not go faster. The pilots manual apparently wasn't that conservative, exceede much over mach .65 and you died. There was very little room to fudge, or push the envelope. Compression hit very early, froze the controls, and you lost control. Compression was a constant compasnion of the P-38, throughout its lifetime.

There really isn't much to argue about. Speeds above about mach .65 were unavailable to the P-38, one of the lowest top ends of a late war fighter plane.

Think of the implications.

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 07:39 PM
tatistics from WWII

total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air in order of most destroyed first

P-51 5,944
F6F 5,168
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,661
F4U 2,140
P-40 1,993

partial break down, the F6F destroyed more aircraft in the PTO than the P-51 did in the ETO

P-51 ETO 4,239 e/a destroyed air
F6F PTO 5,168 this figure is for both carrier and land based units

the big 3 usaaf fighters in the MTO

2,697 for the three types

P-38 1,431 53%
P-51 1,063 39%
P-47 203 8%

the big 3 usaaf army fighters in the PTO

2683 total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air

P-38 1,708 64%
P-47 696 26%
P-51 279 10%

Pulling those kind of numbers takes more then a mediocre aircraft, be sure! Its clear it did not do as well in ETO as in other theaters, but the cards were stacked against the P-38 in the ETO.

Slickun
06-29-2005, 08:03 PM
Aerial Target wrote:


The P-38's pilot handbook was written very conservatively. They said that you must never roll into a dead engine or exceed this pitch and this bank on one engine. However, this was proven to be overcautious when entire flights of P-38 pilots in training feathered engines and performed mock dogfights, complete with one engined rolls and loops. Likewise, by upping the landing gear and raising the flaps to the maneuver position, single engined go-arounds were possible, contrary to what the manual states.

What has this got to do with critical mach numbers? My take is that .65 was pretty much set in stone. Else why dive recovery flaps?

Slickun
06-29-2005, 08:25 PM
From the "uber P-38 thread", posted by Aerial target (it also had the actual placard):

This comes from the P-38 Lightning pilot's handbook. The repeated "but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed" is in my Acrobat document; I do not yet have a hard copy of the handbook.



"The dive recovery flaps should be extended before starting the dive or immediately after the dive has started before a buffeting speed has been reached. If the airplane is buffeting before the dive recovery flaps are extended, the buffeting will momentarily increase and then diminish. With these flaps extended, the nose heaviness is definitely reduced but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed the placard by more than 15 or 20 mph. With the dive recovery flaps extended before entering the dive, angles of dive up to 45 degrees may be safely accomplished. Without dive recovery flaps extended, the maximum angle for extended dives is 15 degrees. Diving characteristics are better with power off than with power on.

WARNING
Although the dive recovery flaps greatly improve the diving characteristics of the airplane, dangerous buffeting and nose heaviness will still be encountered at diving angles above 45 degrees of the diving speed is allowed to exceed the placard limits by more than 15 to 20 mph."



AT, you posted this in the "uber P-38 thread", along with the placard.

I swear, guys, I love the P-38. I refuse to get into another P-51 vs P-38 argument. I won't do it.

My point is simply that the P-38 couldn't do everything as well or better than the P-51.

Pirschjaeger
06-29-2005, 09:30 PM
Gibbage, I'm not questioning the specs you posted but a few things come to mind.

1) the pilots were more experienced in the PTO

2) the enemy was much less experienced in the PTO

3) the numbers of enemy and P-38 pilots was different in the PTO then that of the ETO

Just a few observations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Hoarmurath
06-29-2005, 09:47 PM
well, you just have to look at these planes history to have a clue.

P51 had a very long and successful career after the war

P47 had a very long and successful career after the war

P38 disappeared after the war

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 10:02 PM
I also forgot to mention that the P-38 did not suffer from compressibility at all under ten or fifteen thousand feet. Moreover, an average man could, unlike the game's wimpy virtual pilot who can only pull eighty pounds, keep the yoke in his chest at any speed, even when in compression. Of course, when in compression, having the yoke in your chest won't do a bit of good, but the game is still erroneous in its portrayal of the yoke being impossible to pull back at high speeds.

Once more, P-38 Lightnings have exceeded their limits by far and recovered intact. The L model had no problems diving with any German aircraft.

Here is the graph which Slickun referred to.

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/divelimits.gif

Badsight.
06-29-2005, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
2) the enemy was much less experienced in the PTO hey Fritz

the japanese army air force had been operating in china all throughout the 30's in japans war with china

they had been fighting for longer than the LW pilots had in the SCW no ?

besides that there is also the IJN pilots and their training , the airforces of japan were just about the most combat ready in the whole world when they started up in WW2 . the requirements & training were brutal & strict

i find it amazing that the USN pilots using the Wildcat redeemed it against the Zero & the japanese naval pilots as well as they did

truely gave a good accounting for themselves

Pirschjaeger
06-29-2005, 11:10 PM
Hi Badsight,

I didn't know anything about the training but figured the Japanese combat experienced was limited to the Chinese biplanes and a couple of the Flying Tigers. BTW, I have video footage of one of those d-fights. The Chinese never had a chance.

As I said, I knew nothing about the training but I do know you. I believe you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

wayno7777
06-29-2005, 11:34 PM
IIRC the contract for the P-38 was for an intercepter.

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 11:48 PM
That was a result of an obsolete Army requirement that a fighter have no more than one thousand horsepower.

BigKahuna_GS
06-30-2005, 05:03 AM
S!



Pirschjaeger Posted Wed June 29 2005 20:30

1) the pilots were more experienced in the PTO

2) the enemy was much less experienced in the PTO

3) the numbers of enemy and P-38 pilots was different in the PTO then that of the ETO
__________________________________________________ ________________________


1.True--the PTO P38 pilots were generaly speaking more experienced than the ETO P38 pilots. Most P38 PTO pilots new about differential throtteling techniques enhancing turn and roll rates, few ETO P38 pilots knew these techniques.

2.False----See what Badsite said about the IJN & China. The japanese had some of the best trained and experienced pilots in the world at the beginning of WW2. They literaly had hundreds of flight hours as part of their intense flight training.

3.True-----The P38's in the ETO were the first and only long range fighters early on able to make deep penatrations into germany. Once there they were heavily out numbered and hamstrung with rigid tactical doctrines of staying with the bomber formations. The 38's did not have the freedom asociated with other fighters to place themselves in advance of the bomber stream and bounce enemy formations.



_____



__________________________________________________ _______________________
Hoarmurath Posted Wed June 29 2005 20:47
well, you just have to look at these planes history to have a clue.

P51 had a very long and successful career after the war

P47 had a very long and successful career after the war
__________________________________________________ ________________________



---Neither the P47 or the P38 lasted long in the USAAF after WW2.

The P38 was deemed too expensive to purchase and maintain. The P47's were quickley moved to reserve squadrons and phased out. Neither the P47 or P38 saw service in the Korean War, where both aircraft would have exceeded the P51 as a fighter bomber carrying larger bomb loads and having greater surviability chances to triple AAA. Both the P47N and P38L would have been the better choice for the tactical interdiction role in Korea.


____

Slickun
06-30-2005, 05:52 AM
Kahuna wrote:


.True-----The P38's in the ETO were the first and only long range fighters early on able to make deep penatrations into germany. Once there they were heavily out numbered and hamstrung with rigid tactical doctrines of staying with the bomber formations. The 38's did not have the freedom asociated with other fighters to place themselves in advance of the bomber stream and bounce enemy formations.

Sigh. C'mon Kahuna. You know this is a gross simplification. The P-38 was in the ETO for about a month, a very quiet month, before the P-51 began combat ops.

For that month, I guess the above is correct. In Nov 1943 the P-38's had about a dozen kills and losses. After that, beginning in December 1943, any and all hardships, rules of engagement, or overwhelming enemy numbers the P-38 faced were shared by the P-51 Groups as well.

AT, .65 vs .80 nuff said. Looks like down to about 2000 feet 460 was the placarded limit. Your speculation that LW planes were also limited to the same speeds is interesting.

Hoarmurath
06-30-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

---Neither the P47 or the P38 lasted long in the USAAF after WW2.

The P38 was deemed too expensive to purchase and maintain. The P47's were quickley moved to reserve squadrons and phased out. Neither the P47 or P38 saw service in the Korean War, where both aircraft would have exceeded the P51 as a fighter bomber carrying larger bomb loads and having greater surviability chances to triple AAA. Both the P47N and P38L would have been the better choice for the tactical interdiction role in Korea.


____

lol, the "quickly phased out" P47 stayed in ANG until 1955, and the P47 was used in various countries as well....

But well, it is quite consistent with your usual facts.

Kocur_
06-30-2005, 09:31 AM
Let me add one more, perhaps important aspect: top speeds of P-38's most common opponents in ETO and PTO.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 10:05 AM
Kahuna wrote:


Neither the P47 or P38 saw service in the Korean War, where both aircraft would have exceeded the P51 as a fighter bomber carrying larger bomb loads and having greater surviability chances to triple AAA.

I agree totally with the P-47. However, what makes you think the P-38 had greater survivability than the P-51? That is not supported by the loss data from the ETO in WW2. I posted extensively about this in the "Uber P-38 thread."

BTW. By any analysis, the P-51 was a deadly ground attack plane in WW2 and Korea. Would the P-47 have been better in Korea? Probably. Almost surely. That does not mean the Mustang was a failure, or poor, at ground pounding. The USAF would have exchanged a very good type for maybe the best.

Hendley
06-30-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
tatistics from WWII

total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air in order of most destroyed first

<snip stats>


Ah Gibbage, you should know better. Claim stats should not be cited as evidence of "kills", and more importantly, comparing claim/death ratios between theatres/time periods is completely meaningless.

The 1944 IJN/IJA opposition could not be compared to the IJN/IJA of 1941 or the Luftwaffe of, say, 1942. A Spitfire or P-40 gaining a 1/1 ratio against Me109s and Fw190s in 1942 is much more impressive than P-38s getting 3/1 ratios against IJN fighters in 1945...

Point being, the total claims and claim/death ratios really have very little bearing on assessing the effectiveness of a fighter.

Frankly, Gibbage and others have convinced me that the p-38 deserves much better press than it gets outside of the US (and even within), but citing claim stats doesn't help the argument.

J_Weaver
06-30-2005, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
However, what makes you think the P-38 had greater survivability than the P-51?

The P-38 has two engines. That alone gives the P-38 greater survivability than the P-51. Although the engines on the P-38 were just as vulnerable as those on the P-51.

Why the P-47 was never used in Korea is beyond me. Yes, the P-51 was a very good ground pounder, but the P-47 was better.

Blackdog5555
06-30-2005, 11:06 AM
The P47 and the P38 could carry 2000 and up 3000lbs of bombs. The P38 had low kill number in the ETO for a good reason. LW pilots did not engage P38s.. they attack the bombers and dove from the P38s. The 38 didnt chase then. by the end of the war the 38s did mostly ground pounding.. which the 47 and 38 did amazing well.. the most versatile planes of the era. BTW by the time the Korea war started in 1950 all were phasing to jets. the 38s and 47 which where very difficult to maintain and very very thirsty, were all beat up by 1950. The US fleet of old warbirds wre more ready for museums than combat. the 51 was cheap to buy and fly. Ask Suburo Sakia whathe thought of the P38 in the PTO. I couldnt imagine being a ground crew in the PTO and try to maintain a 38..twice the work. The 51 was the best because it was the cheapest to buy and cheapest to fly and easiest to maintain. Not my opinion.. just what ive read.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 11:14 AM
J_Weaver wrote:


The P-38 has two engines. That alone gives the P-38 greater survivability than the P-51. Although the engines on the P-38 were just as vulnerable as those on the P-51.

Less than 10% of P-38's recieving damage returned on one engine. The conclusion is that over 90% of P-38's losing an engine were lost.

Double the chances of getting hit in one, with a 10% survivability rate if you lost one.

In the ETO, P-38's were less survivable than P-51's. I posted extensively about this in the "uber P-38 Thread", which is currently about on page 5.

The reference for this is Wolfe's "Victory Roll".

geetarman
06-30-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Aerial Target's sig is:

quote:
__________________
"The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain, cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38 J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the ****."

- Captain Arthur W. Heiden


I'm assuming that the pilot quoted believed this, and you do as well.

i believe this opinion about the P-39 matching the P-51 in everything to be in error. I covered this, extensively, in a previous thread titled something like "the uber P-38 thread".

It's this. At speeds above about mach .65 the P-38 was threatened by a deadly compressability. Dive flaps enabled the P-38 pilot to dive at angles of 45 degrees or so and still pull out, but only increased actual dive speeds by a few mph. Mach .65 was placarded in the cockpit. They did NOT suddenly allow the P-38 to enter controllable dives anywhere near the speeds contemporary late 1944 early 1945 planes in the ETO/MTO could reach, either side.

In fact, the P-38 had as low a top end as any plane in the ETO.

The P-51 flew, dove, maneuverd, and operated at speeds impossible for any P-38. P-51's didn't begin to compress until about mach .80.

What we have is a HUGE envelope of speed that the P-38 couldn't operate in, but that the P-51 was still deadly to the opposition in.

An edited version of the above was put into the thread about "P-38 speed in game". Gibbage suggested I debate this in another thread. I have no idea if Gibbage has some sort of authority in this, but it is a good idea. I deleted the other post.

Aerial Target, don't mean to call you out on this, or make you look bad. Just giving another take. The P-38 lates were fine airplanes, deserving to be put with the best planes of the war. But, the P-51 could dive at faster speeds.

Forgive the thread title, but I wanted to make sure you saw all this.

This is one of the reasons I believe the Mustang, in an overall sense, was the more capable fighter, at least at higher speeds.

I do agree with the variety of accounts that the Lightning was probably a better plane to be in at 150mph, just over the tree tops with 109's trying to shoot you down!

Slickun
06-30-2005, 11:18 AM
Blackdog5555 wrote:


Ask Suburo Sakia whathe thought of the P38 in the PTO.

Ask him what he thought about the P-51 after he flew it. He rated it the best, better than his A6M.

P-38 results in the ETO were posted about, extensively, in the "uber P-38 thread". Look for it on about page 5.

Basically, P-38's and P-51's went on about a 5 month competition, Jan-May 1944, in as even conditions as is possible in a war, and the P-51's outscored P-38 groups by roughly a 4-1 margin.

BigKahuna_GS
06-30-2005, 11:21 AM
S!



Hoarmurath--lol, the "quickly phased out" P47 stayed in ANG until 1955, and the P47 was used in various countries as well....



Hya Hoarmurath,

You should check the number of P47's in air guard units by this time, each year more P47 were being phased out(peace devidend and budget cuts).
What started out as thousands of P47s were cut to hundreds. The P47 was an excellent bird fast and tough. P38s like P47s were in service in several countries until the parts ran out. The P38 was just too exspensive to operate.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

The P-38J was followed by the P-38L, deliveries of which commenced in June, 1944, almost 4,000 were built by the end of hostilities. The P-38L was fitted with F-30 engines, delivering equal or better power to higher altitudes, and slightly larger fuel tanks, with booster pumps in the wings. Detail changes included the first tail warning radar in a fighter.

By the end of 1944, the role of the P-38, like that of most Allied fighters, had shifted to tactical ground support largely due to the absence of serious fighter opposition. As the Third Reich crumbled and the Japanese retreated into their final defensive perimeter, the operational career of the P-38 reached its final stage.

Expensive to maintain and fly, most P-38s were phased out soon after the end of hostilities in the Pacific, the F-51 Mustang assuming its role. It is interesting to note that the haste with which the aircraft were disposed of prevented their use in the subsequent Korean war, an environment where the P-38 would doubtless have thrived in its tactical interdiction role, with better payload/radius, firepower and resilience to ground fire than the F-51. The last operational P-38s remained in service with several US aligned Third World countries, but spares, availability and operating costs soon led to their demise. Today only a small handful of aircraft remain, with even fewer flyable.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
Slickrun--I agree totally with the P-47. However, what makes you think the P-38 had greater survivability than the P-51? That is not supported by the loss data from the ETO in WW2. I posted extensively about this in the "Uber P-38 thread."

BTW. By any analysis, the P-51 was a deadly ground attack plane in WW2 and Korea. Would the P-47 have been better in Korea? Probably. Almost surely. That does not mean the Mustang was a failure, or poor, at ground pounding. The USAF would have exchanged a very good type for maybe the best.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Hya Slick,

you read into this a little bit. Never called the P51 a failure in the ground attack roll. The 51 did a good job but like any glycol cooled aircraft, the radiator is the achilles heel. The USAAF 8th AF tried to put the big 3 aircraft where they thought they would do the most good near the end of WW2.

It was a USAF decision to use the F-51 in this role in Korea and by airforce standards, F-51 losses to ground fire were high. I think the P38 & P47 would have been a better choice for the reasons stated before and in in the above artical. Having a second engine to get home on is always an advantage.



http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

Eventually, 1,816 P-47Ns were completed before the cancellation of the contract after Japan surrendered. The big fighters were deployed to the Pacific and were beginning to demonstrate their full potential when two atomic bombs put an end to the conflict. After the war, most of the P-47Ns were allocated to Reserve and Air Guard units, where they served faithfully until they were replaced by jets in the mid 1950s.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-47N-318FG.JPG
Bore sighting the guns on any fighter was meticulous work. To obtain the best result, all the guns were sighted to focus on a specific point. Often, the pilot would specify that point. This P-47N-1-RE served with the 318th Fighter Group operating out of le Shima.

With the outbreak of war in Korea in 1950, the P-51D (now designated the F-51D), was rushed into the fray and did solid work as a fighter-bomber. However, hundreds of P-47s were in service stateside and were never called into service against the North Koreans or later, the communist Chinese. Certainly, there was no doubt that the P-47 was better suited for air to ground close support. It could carry a far greater load of ordnance and was considerably more resistant to ground fire and flak. So, why was the P-47 (F-47) not used? The Thunderbolt‚‚ā¨ôs Navy alter-ego, the F4U Corsair, was used to great effect, and like the P-47, was far more rugged than the Mustang with its fragile Prestone cooling system. To this day, no one has adequately addressed this question. When the chips were down and the U.N. forces were pinned in the Pusan perimeter, where were the Thunderbolts?


__

horseback
06-30-2005, 11:29 AM
What some people in this thread are forgetting (or ignoring) is that P-38s saw their first combats against German and Japanese fighter opposition by the end of December 1942, and the units that flew the 38 from the outset did much better than expected from Day 1. And then they got more effective as they learned the ropes.

That is the main reason the P-38 was the top US fighter in the Med and the Pacific: it had a big head start over the P-47 and Mustang in those theaters, because those types had priority assignment to the 8th AF. We should also remember that in the case of the P-47, range performance was at a much greater premium in those theaters, especially in the early stages of the war, when the Jug was most lacking in this regard.

The P-38 was the only high performance fighter the US had at the war's outset; that is, it was the only thing we had 'on-line' that had comparable performance to the frontline fighters of the European powers, and there was a great rush to get it into combat as soon as possible. Moreover, the premier P-38 units had been assigned the best pilots available, and heavily supported by Lockheed and the Army Air Force in order to get them as close to 'world class' as possible in the immediate pre-war period. They were truly 'elite' units from the ground support personnel up. The only fly in the ointment was that it was hard (especially early in the war, when the industrial priorities had yet to be set) to build in the desired numbers, and combat attrition used up the aircraft faster than they could be produced.

Hence, the 78th FG in Duxford was stripped of its P-38s and a large portion of its original pilots, which were sent to North Africa to help make up combat losses there, or the P-38 would have seen much earlier service in the ETO, likely with much greater success.

Had the complaints of the 20th and 55th FGs been made in the summer of 1943, by people Lockheed knew were competent (and before the Lightning had established itself in the Pacific and Med, swelling certain heads in Burbank), the problems would have been adressed and solved as soon as they reared their ugly heads.

This would still not change a few important facts: the P-47 and Mustang were cheaper and easer to build in large numbers sooner, and both were orders of magnitude easier for an average pilot to master.

Further, both types were markedly superior to German fighters in their preferred escape technique: rolling and diving away (at least in the diving away part). Putting dive brakes on the Lightning made it competitive with the LW fighters in this regard (especially once the Germans had been conditioned to believe that they could still get away from the Lightning this way), but the Mustang and the Jug were still better at it.

Slickun is technically right in that respect, but the Lightning's potential, if mastered, makes what Captain Heiden said understandable and generally accurate. The Lightning had a better gunnery setup, better climb, comparable range, had at least as good a maneuverability, better ruggedness, a more forgiving nature (think about climbing through 10/10ths cloud in formation to 20,000 ft with that fuselage tank full and wing tanks), better accelleration, tricycle landing gear and NO torque.

From Heiden's standpoint, once you have mastered it, the Lightning confers more advantages than the Mustang. Of course, the hard part is mastering it while you're in combat operations...

cheers

horseback

Slickun
06-30-2005, 11:32 AM
Kahuna wrote:


Hya Slick,

you read into this a little bit. Never called the P51 a failure in the ground attack roll. The 51 did a good job but like any glycol cooled aircraft, the radiator is the achilles heel. The USAAF 8th AF tried to put the big 3 aircraft where they thought they would do the most good near the end of WW2.

It was a USAF decision to use the F-51 in this role in Korea and by airforce standards, F-51 losses to ground fire were high. I think the P38 & P47 would have been a better choice for the reasons stated before and in in the above artical. Having a second engine to get home on is always an advantage.

See my post above about survivability. Of course, having two engines appears to be an advantage. But the Lightning survived an engine loss only about 10% of the time in WW2 in the ETO. There were twice as many to hit. The "safety of a second engine" claim doesn't hold water.

I believe that in Korea the number would have been higher (more single engine survivals), less distance to get home, less of an air to air threat near the front lines. But I also have no doubt the Lightning would have suffered greatly from ground fire as well as the Mustang.

P-51 loadout in Korea included 2 x 1000 bombs, as well as a selection of HVAR rockets, along with its 6 x .50 cal. Not shabby at all. The type was obviously good at strafing, witnessed by its work in the ETO against airfields.

The P-47 would have been the choice, however. That and the various marks of the Corsair that the Navy DID use to great effectiveness.

Hendley
06-30-2005, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
I do agree with the variety of accounts that the Lightning was probably a better plane to be in at 150mph, just over the tree tops with 109's trying to shoot you down!

Of course, at this point what you'd REALLY want to be riding in is a Spit.

AerialTarget
06-30-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
The P-38 was in the ETO for about a month, a very quiet month, before the P-51 began combat ops. For that month, I guess the above is correct. In Nov 1943 the P-38's had about a dozen kills and losses. After that, beginning in December 1943, any and all hardships, rules of engagement, or overwhelming enemy numbers the P-38 faced were shared by the P-51 Groups as well.

This is patently untrue in all three points to the point of being absurd.


Originally posted by Slickun:
AT, .65 vs .80 nuff said. Looks like down to about 2000 feet 460 was the placarded limit.

This is also untrue. Since you are allowed, according to the manual (but not to the pilots, who added a few dozen miles per hour), to exceed those limits by twenty miles per hour, you get a perfectly safe minumum of four hundred and ninety miles per hour. Remember, this is a safe minimum. What they aren't telling you is that compression can be safely recovered from by throttling back, if you have enough altitude.


Originally posted by Slickun:
Less than 10% of P-38's recieving damage returned on one engine. The conclusion is that over 90% of P-38's losing an engine were lost.

In the ETO, P-38's were less survivable than P-51's. I posted extensively about this in the "uber P-38 Thread", which is currently about on page 5.

Please state your source for this ridiculous ten percent figure.

As for your second claim, once more I'd like to remind you of the fact that Kahuna and others keep pointing out - the P-38 was stuck to the bombers for the entire war, and the P-51 was free to roam for the entire war. P-38 may have lost more, but that does not make it less survivable, any more than an Cessna is more survivable than a fighter jet simply because it is less often in the combat zone!

My conclusion is that your data is faulty, your objectivity lost, your eggs addled, and your agenda obvious.

lrrp22
06-30-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

As for your second claim, once more I'd like to remind you of the fact that Kahuna and others keep pointing out - the P-38 was stuck to the bombers for the entire war, and the P-51 was free to roam for the entire war. P-38 may have lost more, but that does not make it less survivable, any more than an Cessna is more survivable than a fighter jet simply because it is less often in the combat zone!

My conclusion is that your data is faulty, your objectivity lost, your eggs addled, and your agenda obvious.

AT,

The P-38s of VIII Fighter Command operated under the same mission guidelines as the Command's P-51 and P-47 groups. The were released from close escort at the same time (March '44, IIRC) as the Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

You should be more careful regarding accusations of agendas, you're going to find that Slickun can quite thouroughly support his claims.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 03:19 PM
Horseback, thanks for the comments. I always look forward to your take on things.

The parts I disagree with, especially the ones having to do with the attributes of the two planes, were addressed in the "uber P-38 thread".

I will add this, US pilots all war long trained on one type, then were issued another after getting into the war zone. The P-38 jocks having their planes taken away is a common one.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 03:34 PM
AT, I promise, Sir, I will not post anything I can't back up. You may disagree, and may have your own sources to dispute me with. You may even be right. But I promise I will never post made up material.

The first paragraph comes from an Osprey book about P-38's. I'm at work, so cut me some slack here, but its called "P-38 Aces of the ETO and MTO" by Stanaway, I think. Heck, check out the timeline in "the uber P-38 thread" to see the entrance of P-38 and P-51 units into the ETO. There was a really nice spreadsheet showing it. First kill in a US Merlin P-51 was in mid December, 1943, by the 354th FG, the first P-51 unit in the ETO. It was actually a 9th AF unit "on loan" to the 8th AF. P-38's began ops in Novemvber 1943.

We are going round and round on the mach limits. Just as you say .65, the placarded limit YOU posted, could be exceeded slightly, so could mach .80 be fudged by P-51's. This part of the discussion is becomming bizarre.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 03:48 PM
Aerial Target wrote:


Please state your source for this ridiculous ten percent figure.


I have already posted the reference to this. It's on this page (Unless we go to page three).

Here it is again.

"Victory Roll" by Wolfe, published by Schieffer.

Highly recommended. It has just a TON of stats like this, loss rates, survival after recieving damage etc. Aces stories, kill stats, overviews on the planes etc. I used it extensively in the "the uber P-38 thread". I also posted data to support the claim that P-38's loss rates were higher than the P-51's in the ETO.


Let me ask you. Do you have ANY data disputing the loss rates? I would LOVE to see it, no fooling, no tongue in cheek smart alek stuff. Wolfe's book is about the only source, other than the standard claims two engines worked in the P-38's favor, that I have ever seen.

Do you have anything disputing the rough timeline I've outlined for the appearance of the two great fighter types? A TON of us would love to see that.

Do you have anything showing the Lightning could safely reach mach .80?

The original reason for this thread was to point out that the P-51 enjoyed at least ONE advantage over the P-38. You dispute this, insist the P-38 could dive with the P-51, and thus the P-47, as well. So be it. I did have that as an agenda. Kinda narrow one, but I admit to it.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 03:54 PM
IRRP wrote:


The P-38s of VIII Fighter Command operated under the same mission guidelines as the Command's P-51 and P-47 groups. The were released from close escort at the same time (March '44, IIRC) as the Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

Jan 1944. Kepner was the Commander of the 8th AF. His general command to 8th AF fighters was "The job of the 8th Air Force fighters is to bring the bombers home".

Doolittle was given the job in mid January. He immediately changed the mandate to "The job of the 8th AF fighters is to destroy the Luftwaffe".

Source:
"Clash of Wings" by Boyne.

249th_Harrier
06-30-2005, 04:15 PM
I learned a lot about the p-38 in the "uber" thread and I think it put a lot of things into perspective for me. As a pure 1-on-1 dogfighting machine, it probably never had an advantage over its contemporaries in Europe. I think the MTO record is a better forum for comparing the p-38 to the p-51 (the 8th AF p-38s were thrown into a "mission impossible"). Slickun posted data in the "uber" thread that the p-51 outscored the p-38 by 2 to 1 on a unit-month basis in the MTO (a theater that was better matched to the capabilities of the p-38), and I am inclined to believe it after evaluating the aircraft performance data. In terms of dogfighting attributes, the p-51 could dive better, was faster, better view from the cockpit, higher critical mach, and more maneuverable. The advantages of the p-38 were climb, firepower, and zero torque. It is easy to see why the p-51 was better in air-to-air combat.

I have been thinking about the redundancy issue, and I think there were some good points made as to why this is not necessarily a benefit: if you have more unarmored vulnerable components to hit, the likelyhood they will be hit goes up. Having two vulnerable unarmored glycol cooled engines may not be an advantage in terms of survivability to AAA. The IL2 is the ideal arrangement for AAA survivability: a single, armored, air-cooled engine.

The p-38 does have other advantages over the p-51 as a jabo:
1)larger strike radius with the same payload.
2)If flown below 20k ft, better survivability to engine malfunctions (can RTB if one engine dies)
3) Better gun arrangement for strafing.
4) Better acceleration and climb for escaping after dropping bombs.

Slickun
06-30-2005, 06:03 PM
Well, this is my last post on this thread. Like I said, there is a TON of stuff, several different viewpoints available on about page 5, the "uber P-38 thread".

Again, AT, I'm not trying to do anything other than give one alternate opinion on your sig.

horseback
06-30-2005, 07:02 PM
I want to address two points: twin engine safety and P-38 units' scores vs Mustang and Thunderbolt groups during comparable periods.

Let's start with the twin engine safety issue. It is my understanding that the time you were most likely to lose an engine was during or right after takeoff; in the P-38, this required a complicated series of immediate specific responses, or the airplane would roll over at low altitude, and then you were essentially toast.

New P-38 drivers dreaded this possibility, and in a great many cases, when it occured, flat-out panicked, lost control of the airplane, rolled inverted and dove into the ground. This is an outstanding example of the training failures of the USAAF for the first two P-38 units brought to 8th FC in late 1943. They weren't ready for the airplane they were assigned.

The problem was the sudden onset of torque from the remaining engine. A single engine aircraft losing an engine was in trouble, but torque turning your aircraft upside down at low altitude and low airspeed wasn't one of them. Depending on how much altitude you had, your options were clear and simple: glide to the clearest spot available (possibly even back to base for a landing), or keep it level, and belly in, pop the canopy, and run like hell (fire, you know).

In combat, or when having an engine die on you over enemy territory (safely above treetop level), that extra engine was 'get my precious young @ss home insurance'; it helped protect you from enemy fire from angles that killed other pilots, it gave you some 'right now' getaway power and the attendant unexpected (from the enemy's POV) maneuverability.

Psychologically, it was a huge plus once you got safely airborne. 10% still works out to 10 more experienced fighter pilots out of a 100 who might otherwise be lost, and anybody wants an extra 10% margin of safety/survival in combat. Most of us can find a combat veteran from the Gulf Wars or Afghanistan; ask one of them if he'd prefer equipment that improved his survival chances by 10%.

Now, as for comparing the Lightning groups to the Mustang or P-47 groups, you have to factor in the reality that the groups flying single engined fighters had a significant leavening of combat experienced leadership, and in the case of the third Mustang group to be put on the 8th FC rolls, more experience in-theater than any other group, the 4th FG having been flying combat continuously since early 1942 (with many of its senior personnel having combat tours with the RAF even before that).

My reading of the 20th and 55th FGs' records leads me to believe that these groups were almost singularly devoid of combat veterans, which, along with their standard fighter training background, makes me wonder if they were being used as guinea pigs to prove the theories of some brass hat joker in the training commands...

If so, one can only hope that the individual responsible ended the war as a second lieutenant.

The first two Mustang groups had been able to borrow leaders from the experienced ETO groups to help them learn the ropes, but there is next to no record of similar help extended to the 20th or 55th FGs (possibly because the P-38 was so danged hard to fly effectively, some might have refused the 'opportunity,' or it is also quite possible that the leadership of the 20th and 55th were arrogant horse's patoots that wouldn't allow 'their' groups to be led by outsiders-we'll never know, if we don't already know now).

In any case, the record is clear. The 56th FG had a reputation for 'innovation,' finding ways that met the letter of the orders to protect the bombers but also freed up a good sized chunk of its aircraft to pursue the enemy where he could be found, and some individuals in the veteran 4th and 78th FGs certainly engaged a bit of 'wandering off course' in their efforts to catch up, well prior to Doolittle's liberating orders.

The COs of the 354th and 357th FGs were quick to clue in to the way the game was played. Their mounts could follow the Jerries down to the deck just (well-almost) like the P-47, something a P-38 driver had to be almost suicidal to try, and this allowed them to finish their fights in a way denied the Lightning pilots.

I've seen no stats on bomber losses based on which groups were assigned to protect them, but it wouldn't shake my belief in a just God if the Lightnings' defended 'their' bombers as well as or better than the Mustang groups.

One final note: Those H and J model Lightnings had one other little issue hampering their getting credit for scores. The gun camera on those models was mounted on the nose, right among the guns. Unlike the cameras on Mustangs and T-bolts, which were mounted at the wingroots, warmed by the engine, and less subject to gun vibration, those on the Lightning bounced around like jumping beans and if the shaking didn't obscure your results, it seemed like frost on the lens did.

The late J and L models had their cameras mounted on the droptank pylon, and strangely enough, a higher percentage of overall kills were credited from film results on these models.

A little something for all to chew on.

cheers

horseback

249th_Harrier
06-30-2005, 08:55 PM
WWII is full of big mistakes. In late '43, one example was the unescorted daylight bombing missions. Some bonehead (a beneficiary of the Peter Principle no doubt) thought that the gunners on a b-17 could defend the bombers by themselves. This led to the panicked and rushed implementation of the p-38 as an escort.

For the 8th AF mission profile, the p-51 was better machine. Even if the MTO squadrons had been relocated en masse to England, they still would have had a lot of problems. The high altitude engine reliability was poor, compressiblity started early at the altitude, cockpit heating was terrible. The fact that the appearance of the p-51 had the CYA factor for the aforementioned bonehead was just icing on the cake. One advantage of the armed forces of a democracy, in the end, when the data becomes available, the right decision gets made no matter who gets egg on their face.

AerialTarget
07-01-2005, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
In terms of dogfighting attributes, the p-51 could dive better, was faster, better view from the cockpit, higher critical mach, and more maneuverable. The advantages of the p-38 were climb, firepower, and zero torque. It is easy to see why the p-51 was better in air-to-air combat.

This is false in several ways. The P-38 Lightning was much, much more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang! Whereever did you get that notion? (Don't tell me; there are too many sources that say that the P-38 was an unmaneuverable fighter-bomber.) Secondly, the P-38 L was faster than the P-51 at all altitudes except between one and fourteen thousand feet. This means that the Lightning is faster both on the deck and at most altitudes! Lastly, the P-51 was not better in air to air combat. It was simply easier to become good at it in. A good P-38 pilot would surpass a good P-51 pilot by far. And they did! How many of the top five American aces flew P-51s, anyway?


Originally posted by Slickun:
We are going round and round on the mach limits. Just as you say .65, the placarded limit YOU posted, could be exceeded slightly, so could mach .80 be fudged by P-51's. This part of the discussion is becomming bizarre.

Oh, no you don't! First of all, stop using mach percentages. Speak in miles per hour, which is what the pilot's handbook uses. Okay, now the graph which you misread says that without the dive recovery flap, the maximum safe speed is about four hundred and seventy miles per hour. With the dive recovery flap, you can add twenty. That gives us four hundred and ninety miles per hour without exceeding the limit.

Now, as you have admitted, both aircraft can exceed those limits. Now, a P-38 Lightning can, according to some of the pilots who flew them, reach six hundred miles per hour and recover without a missing rivet. Can you find any pilot accounts like that for the P-51? The P-51 was not known for its structural strength.


Originally posted by Slickun:
The original reason for this thread was to point out that the P-51 enjoyed at least ONE advantage over the P-38. You dispute this, insist the P-38 could dive with the P-51, and thus the P-47, as well. So be it. I did have that as an agenda. Kinda narrow one, but I admit to it.

I actually don't dispute that the P-51 had an advantage in diving. The P-51 could safely reach a slightly higher limit than the P-38. In order for the P-38 to match the P-51, he must exceed his limits. While the P-51 is still within limits, the P-38 will be fighting the shockwaves over his tail. Therefore, the P-51 is a - wonder of wonders - better diver!

However, the knowledgable P-38 pilot is better able to survive exceeded limits than the P-51 pilot. And it can exceed the limits, by a lot! The P-38 has a much stronger airframe. Can the P-51 survive a six hundred mile per hour dive?

As I said, there is proof that the pilot's handbook was written very conservativly. Here it states:


SINGLE ENGINE APPROACH AND LANDING.

CAUTION

Concentrate sharply on your approach-because onceyou have fully extended the flaps, and the landing gear or descended below 500 feet, you cannot again circle the field and you must make a landing.

Yet, it was possible to make a one engine go around by upping gear and setting flaps to maneuver. Therefore, I see no sense in, when contronted with pilot accounts of reaching six hundred miles per hour, pointing to the handbook's limitation and saying that the pilot account must be false.

In addition to this, pilots (I believe Bong was one of them) have stated that there was no compression below ten or fifteen thousand feet. Since my memory is not one hundred percent clear on this, I will go look it up.

Who needs Luftwhiners to belittle the P-38? Americans will do it for them. Bolillo! Kahuna! Where are you with your information and pilot accounts?

AerialTarget
07-01-2005, 03:23 AM
I just did a calculation based on your figure of mach point six five and the P-38 pilot's handbook figure of four hundred and ninety miles per hour. I divided four hundred and ninety by sixty five and then multiplied by one hundred, to get the speed of sound. It was about seven hundred and fifty, thirty miles per hour less than the speed of sound at sea level which I got from Google's built in calculator. Of course, speed of sound is a wildy varying thing, so I decided to use your figure and not Google's.

Now, I divided it by a hundred again and multiplied it by eighty to get your figure for the P-51 Mustang. I got slightly over six hundred miles per hour! Man, are you saying that the P-51 could safely dive at six hundred miles per hour?

249th_Harrier
07-01-2005, 06:30 AM
Comparing contemporary models: p-51B to p-38j:
1)the p51 is faster
2)the p51 has higher roll rate
3)the p51 has higher "roll acceleration" due to lower moment of inertia
4)p51 has better turn time

p-38 had a lot of the advantages of other twins: long range, carrying capacity, speed. In '43 it had unmatched range, speed, and firepower for a fighter. While not the top 1-on-1 dogfighter, the combination of performance and range made it the most valuable fighter asset to any airforce.

In the Med it often met Me110 and Ju88 instead of me109, since the 109 did not have enough range. p-38s ate these for lunch. When they did meet 109s, they had enough performance to fight on even terms. For "airquake arena" type matchups, like we artificially produce online, it was not the best.

geetarman
07-01-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Hendley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
I do agree with the variety of accounts that the Lightning was probably a better plane to be in at 150mph, just over the tree tops with 109's trying to shoot you down!

Of course, at this point what you'd REALLY want to be riding in is a Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I wouldn't -

AerialTarget
07-01-2005, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
Comparing contemporary models: p-51B to p-38j:
1)the p51 is faster
2)the p51 has higher roll rate
3)the p51 has higher "roll acceleration" due to lower moment of inertia
4)p51 has better turn time

The "roll acceleration" you people speak of is balogna. Watch the Roaring Glory video! You can do mathematics until you are blue in the face and you will not change what is. Secondly, the P-51 has never, ever been able to outturn the Lightning. Lastly, I notice you didn't compare the P-38 L (the one in which most of the problems were fixed) and the P-51 D.

BigKahuna_GS
07-02-2005, 12:04 AM
S!

Both planes --the P51 vs P38 had pros and cons. The P51 was liked better in the ETO, while the P38 was the favorite ride in the PTO and it also performed very well in the MTO. I think that would of also been the case in the ETO had the problems the P38 was facing been corrected sooner.

Bodie's sources said that the P38 could dive very fast and at steep angles while under control with dive flaps deployed.


Howdy Keith,

Some things about the P-38L type, and a few others.

First of all, none of those J-25s, Ls or retrofitted P-38Js up to -25 had dive brakes. Those were never intended to be dive brakes, and they were never to be used for purpose for which the units were devised. (That does not mean that some pilots, too, thought they were brakes and used them for that. (It only means that they have not done any reading from the T.O.s. Those units were DIVE FLAPS. Their intended use was to prevent entry into compressibility during a dive from high altitudes. What occurs without them in a dive of more than M.= 0.81 (the figure I recall at old age with looking it up) from, say, 32,000 feet pitchover or roll into, is that when the limiting Mach No. is exceeded, the center of pressure for lift of the wing moves aft and the horizontal tailplane is unloaded. No elevator control is bad.

Heiden might very well confirm that from experience. The idea is to dump the Dive Flaps, and then push over. Changes in airflow means that the tailplane does not lose its effect. Without them, the pilot panics and jumps, as some certainly did, losing the plane and usually getting badly hurt. I made a real enemy at one time, pointing out that he deliberately went up "to see what Lockheed engineers loused up on the planes now." He made his first and last flight in the new J-25 that day. Lost control on the way down and jumped. I forget how he was injured but he did not get back into combat. Later, he was a BTO hotel exec in California. He referred to me as a "Ground Pounder".
I am proud of that, and I should have said this back, in print: Kelly Johnson was a ground pounder too, but could like make you lose some teeth.

The retrofitted Js and J-25s and subs, plus all Ls also had revised landing lights and the leading edge fuel tanks that replaced the L.E. intercoolers in the L.E.s.

Just imagine a Lockheed P-38N without turbos, but with the same R-R Griffons used in some of the very late high-altitutde Spitfires and also using H-S wide-blade props as demonstrated on the XP-38K. Something over 2100 hp per engine. That is why I stated that I could envision that a pilot at full throttle at 33,000 feet might well get into compressibility in level flight unless he extend the dive flaps. They might well have had to go to multi-position flaps instead of just dumping them wide open.

See. I am not yet, quite, senile. Maybe I will have to drink some senile juice on my 82nd birthday.

Warren



___

Bearcat99
07-02-2005, 08:33 AM
Keep in mind that a lot of quotes like this are the pilot's own opinion.... and therefore... as far as that pilot is concerned it is fact. We have to remember that.

Slickun
07-02-2005, 10:58 AM
Mach .81, huh?

Never never outturn the P-38, huh?

Not at any speed or altitude, or any version?

Quite a statement.

JG27_Stacko
07-02-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
... Bolillo! Kahuna! Where are you with your information and pilot accounts?

Sorry, I am busy removing their wings and reducing their pecious P-38s to component parts. Maybe when they are finished dying they will be along later to help you continue this arguement, lol, till then, you're on your own