PDA

View Full Version : J. Steinhoff comments on P-38



249th_Harrier
07-31-2005, 07:48 PM
Johannes Steinhoff was one of the great Luftwaffe aces and the leader of the 77th fighter group in the MTO. He was also one of the few officers with the balls to openly challenge Goring's idiotic leadership. Here is an interview with an interesting comment about the p-38. Probably he is referring to the G and H models he faced during combat over North Africa, Sicily, and Italy.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bljohannessteinhoff3.htm

WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.

SkyChimp
07-31-2005, 08:10 PM
He obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Kurfurst said the P-38 was a rotten fighter. You think some testimonial from a pilot that actually faced it can change that fact?

AerialTarget
07-31-2005, 09:48 PM
Harrier, you moron! Everybody knows that the Lightning had to have flown like a boat, because it's big! Just ask Hristo, he'll tell you the same.

BSS_CUDA
07-31-2005, 10:51 PM
cmon ppl this man is obviously a fake, we all know that Kurfurst and Hristo have more 38 knowledge than anyone that has ever lived, besides if a 38 could actually shoot down a FW it wouldnt be historicaly correct, just ask them. this man is a fraud and a charlitan and should be strung up by the short hairs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pourshot
08-01-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
this man is a fraud and a charlitan and should be strung up by the short hairs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wont happen cuase they got burned off after crashing his 262 :P

Abbuzze
08-01-2005, 01:16 AM
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944.

He described a good Boom and Zoom fighter nothing more nothing less, at the end very different from that what we are doing at our dogfightservers.

JtD
08-01-2005, 01:22 AM
There are other statements by other pilots that say otherwise, so what makes this one so special? He got shot down by a P-38 so naturally he's got to have a little respect.

Considering he flew a 109 that hardly had any advantage over the P-38 in 1943-1944, this statement is not surprising.

Most of the other opposition was poorer, RAF still had Mk.V Spits as main fighter in 1943, some Tiffys while the USAAF upgraded slowly from the P-40.

BigKahuna_GS
08-01-2005, 03:19 AM
S!


You guys are missing the point. Stienhoff was comparing the Lightning to ALL Allied planes including the P51, P47 & Spit.

Since Stienhoff got shot down 13 times, it would be interesting to see just how many times he was shot down by a P38.


Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):

"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3) LtCol. Mark E. Hubbard, CO of the 20th FG: The P-38 will out-turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 25,000 ft,..." "To break off combat, out-climb him if under 20,000 ft. Out-turn him and head for some help. We can outrun him up to 25,000 ft with an even start." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000Pages 80 and 97.

4) Capt. Maurice R. McLary, 55th Fs, 20FG: "...I would say that anyone flying a P-38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single-engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 ft a decent altitude for a P-38." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, Page 106.

5) Capt. Merle B. Nichols, 79thFS/20th FG: "After making a break, if we can make the enemy commit himself by turning with us or or doing anything but a split-S, we can usually be on the offensive in a matter of seconds." "When on the deck, if both engines are running okay - full RPM and maximum manifold pressure - the Hun does not have an aircraft that can catch us." Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31- VIII Fighter Command at War -Long Reach-The Official Training Document Compiled from the Experiences of the Fighting Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth', compiled by Michael O'Leary, 2000, page 107.

6) "Col Oliver B. Taylor, CO of the 14th FG in 1944, analysed the P-38's effectiveness in the theatre with the following recollections:...Stability: The plane could be pulled into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter-rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds. This was particularly useful durning dive bombings and strafing runs because the longitudinal axis of the plane remained on the flight path along which we were aiming. Manoeuvrability: Generally we found the 38 could out-manoeuvre anything else, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 ft (5,490 and 9,450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss-up, except that very near to the ground we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 23.

7) John A. Tilley, an ace with the 431st FS/475th FG, "...remembers that Mac (Tom McGuire-38 victory ace) was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145 km/h)." "Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not (in the 475th FG, anyway- they were an elite group formed on P-38s in-theater with an excellent core group of aces-HB)." "...so how did I get my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the <Japanese pilot> and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got into a jam. And I'm sure the <Japanese pilot> figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single-engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed a 360 degree of this turn, he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine. I couldn't see a thing through the windshiled so I had to ask a squdronmate to lead me home. the I had to crank down the side window and reach around to clear a spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, pages 46-47.

7) "... Air Force captain that had served in North Africa and Siciley had this to tell Lockheed about his P-38 combat experience: 'The chief fighting characteristic of the P-38, aside from its terrific firepower, is its high-altitude capability. And because of its excellent performance at high altitude, the strategy for combat, he said, is to force the aerial battle upward whenever possible. For as altitude increases, the '38 gains the advantage over the Jerry planes not designed for the thinner air."
"Another point of interest is that the P-38 could not only climb higher, but faster than any of the German fighters I encountered. Thsi is important, and as a result of this characteristic and effective combat technique has been developed- that of outclimbing the enemy, and when he stalls out, just rolling over and picking him off."Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Steve Pace, Motorbooks International, Warbird History, 1996.Pages 87-88.


______

JtD
08-01-2005, 03:51 AM
But in 1944 when fighting later Spit's, P-51's and the like he would do so in a G-14, G-10 or whatever. Therefore there was a smaller difference in performance.

I guess if he had been flying the later G's all the time he would rank other planes above the P-38.

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 04:14 AM
for those who conveniently forgot :


CUNNINGHAM: The Me.110 was a disappointment, then, as you say?
GALLAND: Absolutely, absolutely. And I think the Lightning was an equal mistake.

CUNNINGHAM: The P-38?
GALLAND: Yes, the P-38.

CUNNINGHAM: You mentioned in your book that P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat, that you can..
GALLAND (laughing): Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.


from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/

Rall told that he was for a short time in a unit that toured the Luftwaffe units, presenting the captured allied planes and educationg about their properties. He had some stick time with P-38, P-47 and P-51.

Of those planes he told that he thought the P-51 was the best.

I asked him what he thought of the matchup between late model 109's against those allied types he had flown.

He answered that the worst shortcoming in 109 was the limited range, but P-38 and P-47 did not pose that much of a problem. But the P-51 was more difficult, very comparable to Bf 109 in actual combat. But as he said, P-51 could do it for a few hours longer in a flight.

from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. So this was a good lecture for me. After that I became a wing commander of the Wing 300 (JG300). This was at the end of the war in February 1945. It was chaos. I don't talk about that anymore.

Kurfurst__
08-01-2005, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you.

I wonder if there`s any fighter which isn`t a real danger when it`s above you... Abuzze said it right, the Lightning has two pros : good concentrated firepower, good climb and dive, which make it an excellent BnZ fighter. Quite a bit like the 109 so far. It can turn quite tightly, but with that poor roll rate and huge area to hit, it`s hardly suited for manouvering dogfight. Two engine = dogfight fodder

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 04:56 AM
There was a quote from Gen. Gunther Rall, where he said that Luftwaffe flight leaders let new pilots go after Lightnings.

Anyone got a link ?

Grue_
08-01-2005, 06:37 AM
There must already be a 1000 forum pages on Steinhoff's P-38 comment.

Another "I overtook a Porsche. My car must be better" threads.

249th_Harrier
08-01-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
There are other statements by other pilots that say otherwise, so what makes this one so special? He got shot down by a P-38 so naturally he's got to have a little respect.

Considering he flew a 109 that hardly had any advantage over the P-38 in 1943-1944, this statement is not surprising.

Most of the other opposition was poorer, RAF still had Mk.V Spits as main fighter in 1943, some Tiffys while the USAAF upgraded slowly from the P-40.

In the MTO, the p-38 was a feared opponent. It was Steinhoff's job to know. He was fighter group leader, and his group saw a lot of p-38s. Galland was general of fighter operations, a step removed from group leader. His information would be more hearsay than direct experience. Also he may have heard a lot of stories of p-38 performance in the ETO, which was always worse than in the MTO. Another factor to consider is that Stienhoff was a notorious stright shooter, while Galland was more of a political opportunist, so Stienhoff's words count more in my book.

It is likely that Steinhoff was referring to the relative performance of the p-38 during the invasion of Sicily, so this would be the H model. Stienhoff was shot down several times by spits, so the argument that he only respected the p-38 because we was shot down by one is very weak.

F19_Ob
08-01-2005, 07:52 AM
My take on it.

There are many things to consider when comparing the 109 and p-38 historically and in the game.
There is no doubt that p-38's shot down 109's after turningbattles, or the opposit , 109's shooting down p38's.

There is no doubt that the 109 had good stalling characteristics wich enabled hard pulls even at slow speeds, and there cant be no doubt that the same can be said of the p38 wich outturned both p47 and p51 easily and could pull contrails to the moment the wheels touched the runway in landing wich seemingly no other allied fighter could.


So this means they are close to eachother in some respects and a battle could go either way depending on pilotskill or more likely, who got the better initial angle on the other when the fight started.

The slowspeed handling of both planes are close although the 109 can maneuver a bit more freely.
Both accellerates and climbs well although the 109 is more maneuverable and recovers faster after a climb to zero speed.
Both have good armament. the p38's armament is better at very long range and the 109's 30mm cannon is superior at medium and close range.

These qualities of both planes are difficult to argue away, and the experienced tactitians can recognize that it is experience that will determine the outcome of many engagements.

I regularly shot down 109's in doubleseater il-2's and sometimes landed with two or more kills.
The only way to achieve this is by recognizing the opportunities and experience.

P51, p47 can shoot down 109 or fw190's wich is no mystery. Many pilots who flew the p38 and later the p47 and p51 stated that the later planes werent as good as the p38 in turn or climb and accelleration, but good enough.

These are the things I try to keep in mind when comparing these planes.
----------------

My own personal opinion is that the 109 in game is still the better one in close combat and can maneuver best at slowest speeds. others may disagree and are free to do so.

We will never settle this issue with specs because it cant provide the absolut truth and solutions, and the test-figures only diplay a limited range of flying and maneuvering in combat. They give an average, a base.

The only thing we can be sure of is the "pilotskill-factor" and the "initial angle on the other-factor". We can prove in the game that a p38 can shoot down a 109 and the opposite, a 109 shoots down p38's.

Other than that we can only read pilots account and speculate.

well, my thoughts.

BSS_CUDA
08-01-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
There was a quote from Gen. Gunther Rall, where he said that Luftwaffe flight leaders let new pilots go after Lightnings.

Anyone got a link ?

thats because they didnt want their experienced pilots getting shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif lambs to the slaughter as it were, they wanted to keep them around to go after the easy kills like the 51's or 47's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Old_Canuck
08-01-2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
There was a quote from Gen. Gunther Rall, where he said that Luftwaffe flight leaders let new pilots go after Lightnings.

Anyone got a link ?

Colder weather (not German planes/pilots) beat the P-38 in the European Theatre due to the fact the Allison engines would not warm up enough for efficient operation: "The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat.

The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire." Qtd from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.html

Conversely, they performed much better in the warmer Pacific and Med. Theatres.

GR142_Astro
08-01-2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Really a lot of bold text

Atta boy, put it in bold, that will pound it home.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regarding Galland, he narrowly escaped with his scalp intact after a skirmish with......wait for it......yes, a P38. The Lightning ran low on fuel and could no longer press the attack.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At any rate, the P38 was a tremendous fighter in skilled hands. I am loving the newest FB P38 model by the way. I took one up on Warclouds for the first time the other night, and my first encounter was a FW190. I used its speed and zoom, and on the first passing shot off came his wing. I think the guy was in shock. Can't wait till the Fw190 damage model is corrected in the next patch.....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
08-01-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
He obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Kurfurst said the P-38 was a rotten fighter. You think some testimonial from a pilot that actually faced it can change that fact? ROTFL!

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
a lot of self patting on his own back

As GWB said - bring it on ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


and a screenshot from WarClouds for your motivation
http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/motivate.jpg

249th_Harrier
08-01-2005, 10:32 AM
Steinhoff's book "Messerschmitts over Sicily" also contains passages that show the Luftwaffe's respect for the air-to-air performance of the Lightning (I don't have permission to post quotes, so buy the book yourself!). During the invasion of Sicily it was used to escort B-17s on long range missions to the straits of Messina, a mission the spit could not perform due to limited range. According to http://www.luftwaffe.cz/, Steinhoff shot down 5 p-38s in the MTO, in addition to being shot down by one, and led a fighter group against the best p-38 groups in Europe for years. Galland was a paper pusher between 11/41 and 4/45, so figure out for yourself who is a better authority on the relative performance of the p-38.

BSS_CUDA
08-01-2005, 11:06 AM
changed my mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
funny dont remember Warclouds giving plane ranges, nice try tho Hristo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif



Here (http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/vier.zip) is the whole track where the screenshot is from. 4 kills in a G-10 (P-51, P-63, Spit and to round it up - P-38Lame). The last one made quite a bang for a plane that never saw action.

What you consider plane range is actually plane number.

Nice try tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
08-01-2005, 11:23 AM
Boy, somebody has big Chip-N-Shoulder.

LimpWristo, you see urologist to help your E.D., but that still not save you from losing wars.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

geetarman
08-01-2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
My take on it.

There are many things to consider when comparing the 109 and p-38 historically and in the game.
There is no doubt that p-38's shot down 109's after turningbattles, or the opposit , 109's shooting down p38's.

There is no doubt that the 109 had good stalling characteristics wich enabled hard pulls even at slow speeds, and there cant be no doubt that the same can be said of the p38 wich outturned both p47 and p51 easily and could pull contrails to the moment the wheels touched the runway in landing wich seemingly no other allied fighter could.


So this means they are close to eachother in some respects and a battle could go either way depending on pilotskill or more likely, who got the better initial angle on the other when the fight started.

The slowspeed handling of both planes are close although the 109 can maneuver a bit more freely.
Both accellerates and climbs well although the 109 is more maneuverable and recovers faster after a climb to zero speed.
Both have good armament. the p38's armament is better at very long range and the 109's 30mm cannon is superior at medium and close range.

These qualities of both planes are difficult to argue away, and the experienced tactitians can recognize that it is experience that will determine the outcome of many engagements.

I regularly shot down 109's in doubleseater il-2's and sometimes landed with two or more kills.
The only way to achieve this is by recognizing the opportunities and experience.

P51, p47 can shoot down 109 or fw190's wich is no mystery. Many pilots who flew the p38 and later the p47 and p51 stated that the later planes werent as good as the p38 in turn or climb and accelleration, but good enough.

These are the things I try to keep in mind when comparing these planes.
----------------

My own personal opinion is that the 109 in game is still the better one in close combat and can maneuver best at slowest speeds. others may disagree and are free to do so.

We will never settle this issue with specs because it cant provide the absolut truth and solutions, and the test-figures only diplay a limited range of flying and maneuvering in combat. They give an average, a base.

The only thing we can be sure of is the "pilotskill-factor" and the "initial angle on the other-factor". We can prove in the game that a p38 can shoot down a 109 and the opposite, a 109 shoots down p38's.

Other than that we can only read pilots account and speculate.

well, my thoughts.

Very well said! The later planes (for that matter, even some of the earlier planes) are so closely match, on an overall basis, that it's silly to argue which was the best.

I think it's better to look at surprise, skill at handling your plane, gunnery ability and tactics. Me, I like high speed combat and I do not "dogfight." I also bug out of combat every time someone drops dime on me.

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:

YAOI !!



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AerialTarget
08-01-2005, 02:35 PM
Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed, he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive today and a personal friend.

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

Does anyone know where I can find a transcript of this interview?

NorrisMcWhirter
08-01-2005, 02:40 PM
...on the first passing shot off came his wing. I think the guy was in shock. Can't wait till the Fw190 damage model is corrected in the next patch.....

So, even with an 'uber' 190 DM, US planes can still saw wings off on their first pass.

That contradicts the whine boys who say that it's not possible. Or, maybe, you just landed a couple of 20mm hits...which makes it acceptable that a US plane can take a wing off with 2 20mm hits but that an axis plane cannot.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No doubt the 190 will be neutered in the next patch so the stetsons and yee-haws can abound

Ta,
Norris

AerialTarget
08-01-2005, 02:44 PM
You deny that the damage model has a bug (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1791038033/p/1)?

NorrisMcWhirter
08-01-2005, 02:59 PM
Not at all. In fact, if you've seen my other posts on the subject, I acknowledge it. A bit like I now acknowledge that the very existence of the P38-Late is suspect.

However, it does seem that it IS possible to saw off wings etc, quite adequately, on the first pass...something that many a US afficionado has been claiming is not possible since 4.01.

Or do you disagree with that?

Perhaps it's just an observation on how people sometimes forget themselves and give the game away.

Ta,
Norris

MEGILE
08-01-2005, 03:10 PM
Is one automatically a stetson wearing, YEHAW shouting US aficionado, if one believes .50 cals are undermodelled? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AlmightyTallest
08-01-2005, 04:55 PM
LOL, and to think that all of this debate could have been avoided if Oleg added the F4U-4 or a P-47M or N insead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There is no doubt within this community that those two aircraft existed and participated in the war in numbers.

I am inclined to belive the P-38L late was used in the Pacific though and would like to see what Oleg's reasoning was for including a Late P-38L. Perhaps he does have some accurate info that can be verified, he doesn't seem the type to just add anything to the sim unless there's proof of it's existance or proof on how it flew.

BSS_CUDA
08-01-2005, 05:01 PM
I dont think the 50's are undermodeled, if anything I think that some DM's are overmodeled. the 190 series and TA's, the 109K and the LA series, everything else seems ok. I put 20 20mm into an LA-7 couple of weeks ago and it didnt even smoke. but most 109's are easy to bring down with the 50's, yaks are cake, as well as all Japanese planes

BigKahuna_GS
08-01-2005, 05:52 PM
S!

Nice of the 2 local Luft Nuts to come in here and take a dump as usual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I am starting to think that Heristo might be Kurfy's twin brother, they walk alike, talk alike, share the same underware, use the minimum amount of objectivity (0), have the same library (GAF planes are #1 no matter how many battles they lose), both have never come to grips that the Luftwaffe lost evey major engagement from the Battle of Britain to Bodenplatte and the complete collapse of the Luftwaffe.

Heck maybe they are the same guy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


__

faustnik
08-01-2005, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Is one automatically a stetson wearing, YEHAW shouting US aficionado, if one believes .50 cals are undermodelled? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, I wear a baseball hat.

MEGILE
08-01-2005, 05:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

fordfan25
08-01-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
LOL, and to think that all of this debate could have been avoided if Oleg added the F4U-4 or a P-47M or N insead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There is no doubt within this community that those two aircraft existed and participated in the war in numbers.

I am inclined to belive the P-38L late was used in the Pacific though and would like to see what Oleg's reasoning was for including a Late P-38L. Perhaps he does have some accurate info that can be verified, he doesn't seem the type to just add anything to the sim unless there's proof of it's existance or proof on how it flew.

once again im finding my self agreeing with you. -4,m,n would own blues @ss in a bad way. lets get some p51-H moddles and some bearcats to . there beatching about a "late" moddle 38 thats only barly as good as the normal L should be. can you imagien if we had or ubers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif the forum would crash do to the massive hit on its bandwidth do to all the cryn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
08-01-2005, 07:37 PM
Hristo's (like many on these forums) bias comes from his confusion between the aircraft he flies in this computer game and those that real men flew in real combat 60 some years ago. Obviously, I'll take the word of men who actually risked their lives flying in or against these aircraft over that of amateur historians, modern-day pilots/engineers and computer combat pilot wannabes.

Further, Ill take the word of a man who flew against them regularly (Steinhoff)over that of those who encountered them sporadically during a period of downturn in USAAF pilot quality in the ETO(just finished re-reading Zemke's autobiography he co-wrote with Roger Freeman; late spring/early summer of '44, many of the pre and early war trained 'pros' were going home to sell war bonds-the 56th filled the gaps by 'borrowing' some Polish pilots from the RAF). Certainly, I'd question the opinions of those who flew a rebuilt and repaired Lightning on German avgas (there was a long discussion in ORR about the effects of Allied avgas on tests of German fighters... the conclusion was that not using C3 or the appropriate fuel may have given the wrong impression, which leads one to suspect that similar mistakes were made by the other side), especially in light of how long it took an average American pilot to master and fully exploit the Lightning's potential.

Kahuna's post included a number of quotes I compiled for a post I made almost a year ago. I'd refer doubters to buy or borrow Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces #31, VIII Fighter Command at War-'Long Reach', The Official Training Document Compiled From the Experiences of the Fighter Escorts of the 'Mighty Eighth'. There's a section dedicated to each major fighter type operated by the 8th Fighter Command in early 1944. Every combat pilot quoted in the section dedicated to P-38 operations and tactics states unequivocally that the P-38 can out climb and out turn anything the Germans have in the fighter role at most altitudes. Period.

These guys weren't guessing about the capabilities of their mounts; they had tested them in combat, and their appraisal just coincidentally confirms what Steinhoff and the other experten with long experience against the Lightning in the Med were saying...

Tagert has proven fairly conclusively that the P-38L (Late) in the 4.01 patch still doesn't measure up to the documented performance of the standard P-38J of mid-1944, so whether the Lightnings with the F30 engines actually operated at the higher boost and generated 1700+ HP is irrelevent in the Forgotten Battles' context.

The capability of the P-38 J/L relative to its contemporaries is barely represented in-game by the aircraft model labelled P-38L (Late).

cheers

horseback

PS-I have been known to wear a Stetson, but here in the desert states, it is more of a necessity than an affectation, especially for the follicularly challanged...

PPS- I have never seriously Yehawed in public, though-only mockingly.

Hristo_
08-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Sigh, a reasonable post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

How can I make a troll thread if you post reasonably ?! Sheesh, where is Aerial Target, Gibbage or Cuda when you need 'em?

P.S.
An oversized, overweight, overdraggy, overexpensive and overcompressible airplane somehow made it to no.1 on top US planes list ?

wayno7777
08-02-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
P.S.
An oversized, overweight, overdraggy, overexpensive and overcompressible airplane somehow made it to no.1 on top US planes list ?
Sounds like a P-47...

Cajun76
08-02-2005, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
P.S.
An oversized, overweight, overdraggy, overexpensive and overcompressible airplane somehow made it to no.1 on top US planes list ?
Sounds like a P-47... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the P-47 is no.1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
08-02-2005, 02:17 AM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/deadhorse.gif

geetarman
08-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Is one automatically a stetson wearing, YEHAW shouting US aficionado, if one believes .50 cals are undermodelled? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In his world - yes. Where's my hat?

Xiolablu3
08-02-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Nice of the 2 local Luft Nuts to come in here and take a dump as usual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I am starting to think that Heristo might be Kurfy's twin brother, they walk alike, talk alike, share the same underware, use the minimum amount of objectivity (0), have the same library (GAF planes are #1 no matter how many battles they lose), both have never come to grips that the Luftwaffe lost evey major engagement from the Battle of Britain to Bodenplatte and the complete collapse of the Luftwaffe.

Heck maybe they are the same guy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


__

This statement is so so so FALSE

After the BOB FW190's and 109s HAMMERED the Spitfire V's. Look up operation Jubilee.

I'm sure there were many, many victories on the Russian front after the start of Barbarossa? Or am I wrong in thinking that the Russians got pushed right back to Moscow?

MEGILE
08-02-2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by geetarman:


In his world - yes. Where's my hat?

He has nightmares about John Wayne.

Skalgrim
08-02-2005, 10:41 AM
All fighter are danger when they above you, not only p38


Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:


Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you.

GR142_Astro
08-02-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

....the Luftwaffe lost evey major engagement from the Battle of Britain to Bodenplatte and the complete collapse of the Luftwaffe.



Sometimes the truth is so painful....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Hoarmurath
08-02-2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

....the Luftwaffe lost evey major engagement from the Battle of Britain to Bodenplatte and the complete collapse of the Luftwaffe.




Sometimes the truth is so painful....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, you seem to know that feeling very well... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
08-02-2005, 11:29 AM
That's what I love about this forum - some 'folks' take things so literally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Talking of which, history is strewn with wars where those that lost battles won in the end...Take the Viet Cong/NVA as a shining example of that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

MEGILE
08-02-2005, 11:31 AM
No doubt. Take Hitler.. after the war we forced him to shave is mustache off. He looked a bit cooler after that.

NorrisMcWhirter
08-02-2005, 11:37 AM
You might "have had" a spot of trouble shaving it off unless it was asbestos.

Ta,
Norris

249th_Harrier
08-02-2005, 12:14 PM
I would like this thread to be about Steinhoff's comment. If there are any reasonable arguments refuting or supporting or qualifying his comment, I would like to hear them.

Perhaps this is the wrong forum for a rational discussion of history. So sad.

woofiedog
08-02-2005, 12:45 PM
249th_Harrier... Excellent Story!
Thank's for posting it.

CUJO_1970
08-02-2005, 05:20 PM
Perhaps this is the wrong forum for a rational discussion of history. So sad.


Yes, you are correct.

This is the wrong forum for a rational discussion about, well...anything really.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:

YAOI !!



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/lol_2.gif rotfl.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/deadhorse.gif

No... more like http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/deadhorse_2.gif

SkyChimp
08-02-2005, 06:28 PM
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

p1ngu666
08-02-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
08-02-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tankguy.jpg

Hristo_
08-02-2005, 09:25 PM
Until a newbieshooting P-38 stumbled upon Hans Gruber. After that, any K/D ratio of P-38Lame went down the toilet.

BSS_CUDA
08-02-2005, 09:34 PM
Hristo your about as funny as an inflammed Hemmeroid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TAGERT.
08-02-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense. ROTFL!

Hristo_
08-02-2005, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Hristo your about as funny as an inflammed Hemmeroid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I told ya flying fantasy planes is not good for your health http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Gibbage1
08-02-2005, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Hristo your about as funny as an inflammed Hemmeroid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I told ya flying fantasy planes is not good for your health http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Cuda fly's the 109Z.

Hristo_
08-02-2005, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Hristo your about as funny as an inflammed Hemmeroid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I told ya flying fantasy planes is not good for your health http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Cuda fly's the 109Z. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither do I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
08-03-2005, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
08-03-2005, 06:48 AM
Another P38 vs the world thread

Stigler_9_JG52
08-03-2005, 09:59 AM
I see a lot of these descriptions talking about how the -38 excelled up at 15 - 20K feet. How often do you see anybody in IL-2 at that altitude? Not very often.

The few times I've had my **** handed to me by a -38, it had speed (while I didn't) and room to maneuver. The many times I've waxed -38s, they were low, slow (perhaps heavy with rockets and bombs) and waddling around thinking they were "large Zeros".

A lot of this is situational in nature, like McGuire talking about outturning an Oscar...in a 12 vs 2 scrap. No way that Oscar was going to get a shot off in that situation; before he could, somebody else was going to be all over him. So, it's not even certain that he was turning at his min radius. He might have been distracted by the situation, or perhaps trying to save a little speed for when the next guy would drop in on his tail. Really hard to tell exactly what was going on in those few split seconds.

Gibbage1
08-03-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I see a lot of these descriptions talking about how the -38 excelled up at 15 - 20K feet. How often do you see anybody in IL-2 at that altitude? Not very often.


IL2's high alt modeling sucks. P-38 is a dog at its critical alt and cant even reach its ceiling altitude. On the otherhand, P-51's, P-47's, 190's and 109's dont suffer at high alt.



The few times I've had my **** handed to me by a -38, it had speed (while I didn't) and room to maneuver.


Smart P-38 pilot



The many times I've waxed -38s, they were low, slow (perhaps heavy with rockets and bombs) and waddling around thinking they were "large Zeros".


Stupid P-38 pilot



A lot of this is situational in nature, like McGuire talking about outturning an Oscar...in a 12 vs 2 scrap. No way that Oscar was going to get a shot off in that situation; before he could, somebody else was going to be all over him. So, it's not even certain that he was turning at his min radius. He might have been distracted by the situation, or perhaps trying to save a little speed for when the next guy would drop in on his tail. Really hard to tell exactly what was going on in those few split seconds.

I dont think there is many situations when a P-38 could out turn a Ki-43 or Zero. MAYBE at very high speeds, but you wont find a Ki or A6 at high speed very often. The pilots claiming to out turn a Zero at low speeds is I think complete ****. Yes, the P-38 did not have torque, and had a very high lift wing profile, plus the flaps were directly behind the thrust adding to lift, but lets get real here. Its a big aircraft, and a heavy one. The A6M and Ki-43's stall speed is even lower then the P-38 due to its lift-vs-weight and thats one of the most critical aspects in a slow turn fight.

It was a good fighter. It was a **** good twin engine fighter! But not the best fighter overall of WWII. I dont think anyone is claiming it was.

faustnik
08-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
On the otherhand, P-51's, P-47's, 190's and 109's dont suffer at high alt.


Obviously you have never flown a Fw190A at high altitude in PF. The 190A sucks at high altitude too, but, at least it should. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AerialTarget
08-03-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was a good fighter. It was a **** good twin engine fighter! But not the best fighter overall of WWII. I dont think anyone is claiming it was.

I hate to throw a wrench in your argument, but I very nearly am claiming that it was. I believe that the P-38 was the best performing fighter of the war, but not the best due to logistics.

Anyway, we still don't have the ability in game to have a controlled accellerated stall. When we do, I will probably stop complaining about the P-38 regardless of whatever else still isn't fixed (turn and roll and climb rates).

carguy_
08-03-2005, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
IL2's high alt modeling sucks. P-38 is a dog at its critical alt and cant even reach its ceiling altitude. On the otherhand, P-51's, P-47's, 190's and 109's dont suffer at high alt.

Yeah it sux though it came a long way since v1.0.
Never seen a P38 higher than 2500m.Above 6500m,P51/P47 have normally 70kph advantage over Me109/FW190 and are a bit more maneuverable.Granted the 109/190 are at 65% fuel and P51/P47 at 43% fuel this results of 109/190 being owned.All you can do in 109/190 is dodging bullets,you can retaliate if you go down to 4500m.

Summing it up you pretty much spilled BS here.It`s obvious you don`t have experience in LWvsUSAAF high altitude fights in IL2.

And you are the one who accuses ppl of writing false info with smart alec replies.

JG5_UnKle
08-03-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
IL2's high alt modeling sucks. P-38 is a dog at its critical alt and cant even reach its ceiling altitude. On the otherhand, P-51's, P-47's, 190's and 109's dont suffer at high alt.

Yeah it sux though it came a long way since v1.0.
Never seen a P38 higher than 2500m.Above 6500m,P51/P47 have normally 70kph advantage over Me109/FW190 and are a bit more maneuverable.Granted the 109/190 are at 65% fuel and P51/P47 at 43% fuel this results of 109/190 being owned.All you can do in 109/190 is dodging bullets,you can retaliate if you go down to 4500m.

Summing it up you pretty much spilled BS here.It`s obvious you don`t have experience in LWvsUSAAF high altitude fights in IL2.

And you are the one who accuses ppl of writing false info with smart alec replies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%, sorry Gib but if you try it from BOTH viewpoints you can't say that about the 190 or the 109

faustnik
08-03-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I believe that the P-38 was the best performing fighter of the war, but not the best due to logistics.

But...

...nevermind.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cajun76
08-03-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Granted the 109/190 are at 65% fuel and P51/P47 at 43% fuel this results of 109/190 being owned.

What are the differences in fuel capacities and ranges of these warbirds in action? I don't have time at the moment, but I'm willing to bet that the 51 and 47 are carrying more fuel at a lower percentage than the 109/190 are at a higher %. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
08-03-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
What are the differences in fuel capacities and ranges of these warbirds in action? I don't have time at the moment, but I'm willing to bet that the 51 and 47 are carrying more fuel at a lower percentage than the 109/190 are at a higher %. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yes,ofcourse.That is why 95% of online coop sorties should be flown on 50% or less fuel on those birds.Those that takeoff with 100% are very sluggish in turnfighs,even at altitude being in their favor.They do not lose much speed that way though which are essential while flying P51/P47.Sadly,too many of USAAF online pilots stay with you in scissors.
If you know your plane and can estimate an amount of fuel you want to take,essential to let you land safely you can get VERY good maneuverability from P51,much worse on P47 but this is a different plane.With 43% or less fuel in combat situation above 6500m those birds outperform 109/190 almost totally.

249th_Harrier
08-03-2005, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
I would like this thread to be about Steinhoff's comment. If there are any reasonable arguments refuting or supporting or qualifying his comment, I would like to hear them.

Perhaps this is the wrong forum for a rational discussion of history. So sad.

Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

NonWonderDog
08-03-2005, 08:18 PM
I also think that 100% fuel means as much fuel as the tanks can carry... not the greatest amount of fuel used in a combat situation. "100% fuel load" should probably be labelled "115% fuel load" in the Yaks and the P-51 at the very least, and I wouldn't doubt that full fuel tanks was overload for several other fighters as well.

darkhorizon11
08-03-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tankguy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chyeah, I couldn't agree more.

Allies 1
Luftweenies 0

I've been busy the past 3 days, combination of finals, flying, and the girlfriend can't get enough sex, lucky me. I don't feel reading the past few pages in all these threads, has anything new been established or is the the same yes it flew vs. no it didn't babble?

geetarman
08-04-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
What are the differences in fuel capacities and ranges of these warbirds in action? I don't have time at the moment, but I'm willing to bet that the 51 and 47 are carrying more fuel at a lower percentage than the 109/190 are at a higher %. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yes,ofcourse.That is why 95% of online coop sorties should be flown on 50% or less fuel on those birds.Those that takeoff with 100% are very sluggish in turnfighs,even at altitude being in their favor.They do not lose much speed that way though which are essential while flying P51/P47.Sadly,too many of USAAF online pilots stay with you in scissors.
If you know your plane and can estimate an amount of fuel you want to take,essential to let you land safely you can get VERY good maneuverability from P51,much worse on P47 but this is a different plane.With 43% or less fuel in combat situation above 6500m those birds outperform 109/190 almost totally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post. One of the many challenges now of flying a P-51, is deciding the correct amount of fuel. 25% and two drop tanks? 50% internal and no tanks?

Although the 51 is a bit more manueverable at 25%, I don't think it picks up and holds speed as well in a dive. I am starting to believe the best compromise is 50% internal. With that amount, you can fly forever, have reasonable medium-speed and excellent high speed agility and good dive/energy retention.

As the game wears on and progresses, you really have to fly the US birds in their element and not let a bandit saddle-up on your six in order to be effective. Start high and fast, dive, attack and get outta Dodge for a (hopeful) second or third attempt.

Slickun
08-04-2005, 10:58 AM
Steinhof's comments are, of course, his opinions. He is welcome to them, and I love reading stuff like that.

I bought the Osprey book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO and MTO" by Stanaway (I think that's the title, I'm at work) some time ago.

In the introduction there is a comment that in a poll of former LW pilots, after the war, of which allied planes they thought were best, or feared the most, something like that, the P-38 placed last, the Spitfire first.

It seems that amongst the surviving LW pilots some had a different opinion of the P-38.

The pilots that flew the captured American planes felt the p-51 was the best of the lot. That from "Strangers in a Strange Land" by Stapher.

Zemke felt the P-51 was the best plane of the three types he flew as a Group Leader (P-51, P-38, P-47).

Galland had 100+ kills in the West. Don't just throw out everything he said.

There are a LOT od different opinions on every WW2 type. Cherry picking a few favorable ones does only that, shows favorable comments.

The P-38 had many good qualities. It is easy to find good things to say about it.

Skychimp's comment says much more than what he typed. Anybody else pick up on it?

LStarosta
08-04-2005, 12:20 PM
The Wildcat pwns the P38.

horseback
08-04-2005, 03:18 PM
Steinhof's comments are, of course, his opinions. He is welcome to them, and I love reading stuff like that.

Steinhoff's comments are important because of his acknowledged skills as a fighter pilot and leader from the war's outset, his reputation for blunt honesty, and because his encounters with the P-38 extend over a longer term against prewar trained Lightning 'specialist' groups, as opposed to the midwar 'production line' trained airmen of the ETO Lightning groups.

Essentially, Steinhoff was one of the few LW survivors who saw the Lightning flown regularly by men who could fully exploit its potential, so his views on it lend substantial weight to arguements over its real abilities, as opposed to what happened when it was badly operated or maintained.


I bought the Osprey book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO and MTO" by Stanaway (I think that's the title, I'm at work) some time ago.

In the introduction there is a comment that in a poll of former LW pilots, after the war, of which allied planes they thought were best, or feared the most, something like that, the P-38 placed last, the Spitfire first.

It seems that amongst the surviving LW pilots some had a different opinion of the P-38.

Reputation counts for a lot in military organizations...I wonder how many of those LW pilots actually encountered both Spitfires and Lightnings. The Spit established its reputation early in the war, before the experten had developed their skills.

It was the first Allied aircraft the LW encountered in numbers with anything like a comparable performance to the 109 Emil (yes, the D.520 was comparable, but rare), and it was flown by well trained and motivated pilots. But by 1941-2, over France, the LW was hacking Spitfires down in droves, and in fact, the scoring pace of the Kanalfront geschwadern was only slowed by the appearance of the American P-47 groups.

Sort of like the Green Bay Packers of the 60s coming to mind when the name is brought up, rather than the weak teams playing in Green Bay from 1968 until Brett Farve showed up...

There weren't a lot of surviving LW pilots from the Med, where the P-38 was well flown and numerous, so the majority of LW impressions came from the first few Lightning groups that operated with the 8th AF, poorly trained, poorly maintained, and badly led for their first few months of operation, which just coincidentally, occured at the high-water mark of the LW over central Europe.


The pilots that flew the captured American planes felt the p-51 was the best of the lot. That from "Strangers in a Strange Land" by Stapher.
Stapfer is an acknowledged expert on the LW and its aircraft, and that the Mustang would be favored by LW pilots over the other types is natural. It was easy to master, it was much closer in size than the other American types, it's engineering simple and robust, its engine capable of accepting some variaties of fuel without noticeable effect. The Lightning was much more complicated (how much harder would it be to keep it in flying condition from the wreckage of other planes?), far harder to master, its size possibly intimidating for a pilot introduced to it for the first time, and the Allison/turbosupercharger combination much more finicky. As I pointed out earlier, if the BMW 801 and the DB 605 reacted poorly to Allied aviation fuels, it is not unreasonable to expect that some Allied engines did not take well to the German fuels either. The Allison was far more susceptible than the Packard Merlin and the R-2800 in this respect.

Zemke felt the P-51 was the best plane of the three types he flew as a Group Leader (P-51, P-38, P-47).

Galland had 100+ kills in the West. Don't just throw out everything he said.

There are a LOT od different opinions on every WW2 type. Cherry picking a few favorable ones does only that, shows favorable comments.
Zemke got the 479th just as they got word that they were transitioning to Mustangs. He had limited experience in the P-38, and was aware of the problems that it had in the 8th AF, so his focus was naturally on the Mustang and building his new group's confidence and morale. Had he been in the Lightning for more than a month and a half, he might well have made more of an effort to fully exploit its strengths. Instead, he had to get his people thinking positively about their new mounts.

That said, he was probably right. But I would maintain that there wasn't that much difference between the three if all three were well maintained, properly fueled, and flown by pilots experienced in the respective types.

As for Galland, the overwhelming majority of his 100+ kills 'in the West' were achieved before 1942, against French and British opposition. I'll accept his expertise on the Battle of Britain, and the subsequent 'Happy Time' of 41-42. However, his opinion of the P-38, like that of most of his pilots, was strictly second-hand. It appears that the one time he did make contact with Lightnings, he nearly got his @ss shot off. It appears that pride and bombast are not exclusively an American province.

As for cherry picking, that is more the area of the P-38s critics. Most of the defenders agree and openly concede that it had faults, that it was more demanding of its pilot and maintenance crews, it was more expensive, had a lower Mach number than its stablemates, and we acknowledge that its greatest failing was that it generally couldn't dive after German fighters the way the Mustang and Jug could -but neither could the overwhelming majority of the other Allied fighters.

None of those flaws justify the blatant way in which the documented strengths of the Lightning have been misportrayed (or simply excluded) in Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters. No other aircraft with a comparable combat record has been so poorly treated (although the P-47 comes close). You don't see the LaGG variants portrayed in this way, and by all accounts, they were consistantly much worse and far more treachorous than their official specs would indicate. The MiG 3 was little better.

The P-38 fighter was the only American made frontline fighter flown exclusively by Americans. It was the first high altitude, high performance fighter operated by the Army Air Force, and it served on all fronts. It deserves better treatment than it has received so far.

Like Rodney Dangerfield, we'd just like to see it get a little respect.

cheers

horseback

Hoarmurath
08-04-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

The P-38 fighter was the only American made frontline fighter flown exclusively by Americans. It was the first high altitude, high performance fighter operated by the Army Air Force, and it served on all fronts. It deserves better treatment than it has received so far.

horseback

Does it mean that you will stop the whining and start the training?

HayateAce
08-04-2005, 04:20 PM
*****Mouth,

Thank you for your ******ed interludes.

No, really.

Hoarmurath
08-04-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
YAOI!

before hristo come in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

faustnik
08-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Nice post Horseback! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

horseback
08-04-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The P-38 fighter was the only American made frontline fighter flown exclusively by Americans. It was the first high altitude, high performance fighter operated by the Army Air Force, and it served on all fronts. It deserves better treatment than it has received so far.

horseback

Does it mean that you will stop the whining and start the training? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is whining? The P-38L (Late) modelled in the game still doesn't reach the documented performance of 3200 HP P-38Js of mid 1944 and if anything, the biggest complaints are coming from those flying blue who can't accept that the Lightning could even have been that good. The possibility that it might get all its virtues added to the FM must irritate them mightily.

P-38 fans are gratified to have what we have, and as we get a better handle on what it can do, we'll enjoy greater success with it. Except for the P-39 drivers, lovers of American iron have had lots less practice than the hardcore blue fliers who started with Il-2 Sturmovik, but I'm sure we'll get there in time, Lord willing and the FM don't get changed back again...

cheers

horseback

Hoarmurath
08-04-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

Who is whining? The P-38L (Late) modelled in the game still doesn't reach the documented performance of 3200 HP P-38Js of mid 1944 and if anything, the biggest complaints are coming from those flying blue who can't accept that the Lightning could even have been that good. The possibility that it might get all its virtues added to the FM must irritate them mightily.

P-38 fans are gratified to have what we have, and as we get a better handle on what it can do, we'll enjoy greater success with it. Except for the P-39 drivers, lovers of American iron have had lots less practice than the hardcore blue fliers who started with Il-2 Sturmovik, but I'm sure we'll get there in time, Lord willing and the FM don't get changed back again...

cheers

horseback

I fly the P-38... With the L_late, i can outspeed, and outclimb most german fighters at altitudes going from SL to 7000m. I can even outturn a fw190D in a stall fight (quite useless feat, but still amusing). The only thing that i have seen needed in P-38 online is more skilled pilots, that don't try to use their lightnings as big spits. Expecting to jump in any plane cockpit and beating people that are more experienced than you are is prone to failure, no matter how good is your plane.

Atomic_Marten
08-04-2005, 06:38 PM
YAOI!

Don't know why exactly but this word is hilarious.
http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/biggrintoothless.gif

Hristo_
08-05-2005, 04:25 AM
"Yaoi!! " originates from here:

http://www.interq.or.jp/tokyo/antique/reideen.html

TooMuchCheese
08-05-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

Who is whining? The P-38L (Late) modelled in the game still doesn't reach the documented performance of 3200 HP P-38Js of mid 1944 and if anything, the biggest complaints are coming from those flying blue who can't accept that the Lightning could even have been that good. The possibility that it might get all its virtues added to the FM must irritate them mightily.

P-38 fans are gratified to have what we have, and as we get a better handle on what it can do, we'll enjoy greater success with it. Except for the P-39 drivers, lovers of American iron have had lots less practice than the hardcore blue fliers who started with Il-2 Sturmovik, but I'm sure we'll get there in time, Lord willing and the FM don't get changed back again...

cheers

horseback

I fly the P-38... With the L_late, i can outspeed, and outclimb most german fighters at altitudes going from SL to 7000m. I can even outturn a fw190D in a stall fight (quite useless feat, but still amusing). The only thing that i have seen needed in P-38 online is more skilled pilots, that don't try to use their lightnings as big spits. Expecting to jump in any plane cockpit and beating people that are more experienced than you are is prone to failure, no matter how good is your plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There, I think is the absolute knub of this whining about one aircraft over another. Fly the **** aircraft you have to its advantages and(particularly in the P38 which I find to be OUTSTANDING), and you will EASILY dominate. Adapt and overcome springs to mind......

"Its the pilot, not the aircraft" General Chuck Yeager.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 10:13 AM
So, Horseback, Steinhoff's opinions count more than anybody else's? A long, long post defending his and only his OPINIONS, and casting doubt on all the other others I listed. C'mon. You're better than that.

My point was, again, that Steinhoff's opinions can be countered by other, reputable folks. The fact you like his opinion over Zemke, Galland, and a bunch of surviving LW pilots that both flew and flew against allied types, is simply your opinion as well.

Hey, you like the P-38, fine, I do to.

Here's something else to think about. A lot more LW pilots were killed by Mustangs than P-38's. Their opinions were never heard in that poll Stanaway reported on.

We could go on and on....but my point is, again, one can find qualified opinions backing any of the big 3 anywhere you want to.

Atomic_Marten
08-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
"Yaoi!! " originates from here:

http://www.interq.or.jp/tokyo/antique/reideen.html

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/lol_5.gif

Slickun
08-05-2005, 10:23 AM
To change the subject a bit.

Has anybody got a handle on exactly how many P-38L's actually saw combat over Europe?

The last I looked, we had no hard data that the type ever flew with the 8th AF. Only a bit of anecdotal evidence.

Nothing I've read about the 9th. Were L's flying with the 9th?

Did L models see combat with the 15th? I am totally in the dark on this and welcome any enlightenment.

We are pretty sure P-38J models running 66" map flew briefly with the 8th in late summer 1944. They were "cleared" to do it at least.

We are not sure any P-38J's flew at 66" map with the 9th due to a lack of 150 grade avgas.

We are pretty sure no 150 grade was available to the 15th, so same doubts cast on P-38J's running at 66" there as well.

I guess my question is, can anybody say for sure the P-38L "Late", or its P-38J brother running at 66" map, even belongs in a discussion concerning the ETO? If so, how many are we talking about?

horseback
08-05-2005, 10:24 AM
You're missing the point, cheese. It took several months of documentation and debate to get the P-38 we finally have, not whining.

There are worlds of difference between the FMs of the P-38 originally offered in AEP and the one we have today, and it's not because we bit our collective lip and took what was offered - which, in my humble opinion, amounted to an inflamed anal passage.

The FB/AEP/PF series has long been touted as the 'most realistic' WWII air combat sim going-unless you're flying American fighters rarely found on the Russian front. Every American built fighter, with the notable exception of the P-39, has had severe FM, DM, and firepower issues, and it's taken over a year to get some of them addressed.

Gibbage used to be one of the most prolific and helpful posters on the board, until the P-38 that he put so much love and effort into modelling for 1C arrived in AEP shamefully gutted, despite the reams of performance documentation he provided. As I understand it, he was informed that all that documentation from American sources was 'propaganda.'

Oleg and his team apparently took their original FM data for US aircraft from German and Soviet sources, apparently gleaned from flying rebuilt wrecks, which proved that the Americans were obviously lying...which fit into the blue lobby's agenda quite well. They learned to be more subtle during the FW 190 cockpit bar wars, and have waged a fairly effective campaign to hamstring the US fighters which historically beat their favorite airplanes out of the sky over Germany.

Advocates of the P-47, Mustang, and now the P-38 have posted and sent hundreds if not thousands of pages of data to 1C and these forums, enduring the arguments, insults, innuendo, misinformation and flat out lies to make their points again and again.

If and when the search engine on this forum works, you might invest the time to see how far back these debates go (although I sometimes wonder if the search engine was disabled to prevent that very thing). A number of the hardcore US aircraft fans have become imbittered, having endured a great many personal attacks and provocations. Gibbage and Copperhead are outstanding examples of this, because having been perceived as leading the charge for the P-38 and P-47, respectively, they were singled out for some of the worst bile and personal harassment.

All of us who have been advocates of American WWII aircraft have become a little touchy, bordering on paranoid. We know that everything we've won so far can disappear with the next patch, or that the rest of our aircraft's virtues relative to the blue aircraft could finally be included, and then we could actually use the same tactics our fathers, grandfathers or uncles actually used successfully.

The battle never ends.

cheers

horseback

Hristo_
08-05-2005, 10:34 AM
hmm, fingerpointing and personal opinion.

So, where is all that, often mentioned but never shown, hundreds of pages of P-38L Late data ? Where is the proof that it flew operationally ?


P.S.
Gibbage and Copperhead are worlds apart. Just like comparing SkyChimp to HayateAce. YAOI !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-05-2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
hmm, fingerpointing and personal opinion.

So, where is all that, often mentioned but never shown, hundreds of pages of P-38L Late data ? Where is the proof that it flew operationally ?


P.S.
Gibbage and Copperhead are worlds apart. Just like comparing SkyChimp to HayateAce. YAOI !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't really know...

Some of the regular guys here were saying that every P-38L was 1750HP rated, in real life. They said that 'on paper' it was a 1600HP plane but in real life, 'on field' they were 1750HP ones.

Before that I was indeed thought that there are more L models with different engines, that LATE is some other L model and certainly questionable if such plane should be in game.

Now if we take into account what Gibbage and some others are saying about that plane, the LATE should replace standard pre 4.01 L in game because it is incorrect. And all L models had the same engines.

Now either they;
are right and have evidence for that
or they have mistaken something badly (less likely)
or they are simply lying.

There is no other options.

carguy_
08-05-2005, 10:55 AM
The problem with guys like those mentioned by herseback is that they do not know sh*t about Luftwaffe planes yet they post BS whether it`s ingame or real life performance.


As for the P38L.Well,there were no P38Llate in 8TH AF.Anyway,according to them P38Llate makes up for those P38J totally ruined by biased nazis and commies.

horseback
08-05-2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
So, Horseback, Steinhoff's opinions count more than anybody else's? A long, long post defending his and only his OPINIONS, and casting doubt on all the other others I listed. C'mon. You're better than that.

My point was, again, that Steinhoff's opinions can be countered by other, reputable folks. The fact you like his opinion over Zemke, Galland, and a bunch of surviving LW pilots that both flew and flew against allied types, is simply your opinion as well.

We could go on and on....but my point is, again, one can find qualified opinions backing any of the big 3 anywhere you want to.

Slickun, I originally posted that Steinhoff quote along with around 4 others from the LW and another 5-6 American combat pilots from the Med, ETO, and Pacific theaters over a year ago. Parts of that original post still float to the surface on these and other forums periodically, so it must have had some positive impact.

In the case of Steinhoff, it's not just a matter of OPINION, it's a matter of EXPERIENCE, something sadly lacking in the case of most surviving LW fighter pilots in regards to the Lightning. Most of their experiences with it in the ETO appear to be catching the 9th AF ground attack specialists low and heavy with ground attack ordnance, not exactly ideal tactical circumstances for the Lightning, which might conceivably skew their impressions...

I'm not quite in AerialTarget's camp; I concede that the Mustang and the Thunderbolt were better suited to the ETO high alt escort role. I simply would like to see the Lightning's (and the Mustang's and the Jug's)real virtues modelled in similar proportion to the blue team's aircraft.

As I stated in my previous post, it's an ongoing battle. I'm fairly thick skinned, I try to cultivate a degree of intellectual honesty and humor, and apparently, I don't have much of a social life, so as long as my coffeemaker works and my supply of Doritos holds out, I'll be around...

cheers

horseback

Slickun
08-05-2005, 11:03 AM
I'm not quite in AerialTarget's camp; I concede that the Mustang and the Thunderbolt were better suited to the ETO high alt escort role. I simply would like to see the Lightning's (and the Mustang's and the Jug's)real virtues modelled in similar proportion to the blue team's aircraft.


This reflects my attitude almost exactly.

Keep up with the coffee, your posts are amongst my favorites to read.

Now. Do you have any information about the availability of the L in the ETO? This question is vexing me.

p1ngu666
08-05-2005, 11:12 AM
btw, the spit V was a comprimise, it got the 2nd best merlin so the hurri could have the better one and stay somewhat competative...

some people say the mark V was good, others it wasnt.. im not sure personaly.

the I, II IX,VIII,XIV where all very good aircraft.

it also stopped the lw when they thought victory was theres several times. german troops where scared of teh typhoon, mostly because it shot them, but it also looks very intimidating and scary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
08-05-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by horseback:

Oleg and his team apparently took their original FM data for US aircraft from German and Soviet sources, apparently gleaned from flying rebuilt wrecks, which proved that the Americans were obviously lying...which fit into the blue lobby's agenda quite well. They learned to be more subtle during the FW 190 cockpit bar wars, and have waged a fairly effective campaign to hamstring the US fighters which historically beat their favorite airplanes out of the sky over Germany.


Yeah, watch out for that blue agenda. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
hmm, fingerpointing and personal opinion.

So, where is all that, often mentioned but never shown, hundreds of pages of P-38L Late data ? Where is the proof that it flew operationally ?


P.S.
Gibbage and Copperhead are worlds apart. Just like comparing SkyChimp to HayateAce. YAOI !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Get with the program. We are not talking about only the P-38 Late, but the P-38 line of fighters. But that does include the P-38 L (AkA "Late")

Hristo_
08-05-2005, 01:27 PM
Don't try to smuggle P-38L Late into the P-38 lot. It is a what-if plane, unlike rest of the group.

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Don't try to smuggle P-38L Late into the P-38 lot. It is a what-if plane, unlike rest of the group.

Only in your clown filled world troll boy. In reality, over 3000 P-38 L's were produced.

horseback
08-05-2005, 02:49 PM
Faustnik, are you going to deny that there has been a division into red and blue cliques on these boards, with further subdivisions into East and West red teams, with some of these red teams joining in piling on the 'American' red camp?

Please. Everyone has a point of view, and everyone wants to keep the advantages they've been lobbying for and won. They also continue to lobby to obtain what they perceive as the historical advantages that their favorite rides actually had vis-a-vis the opposition.

Slickun, thank you for your kind words. Now I'll have to try to live up your opinion...

Regarding the issue of the P-38L operating out of Britain or at least under the auspices of the 8th or 9th AF, our problem is being able to identify records or dated photos of P-38Ls in combat operations.

The photo issue is greatly complicated by the fact that the late J with compressability (dive brakes) flaps were outwardly almost identical to the L. Since most ETO/Italy based Lightnings had their serial numbers on the tail obscured by the geometric symbols used for identification (the fuselage letters were hard to pick out, being much smaller than the ones on single engine fighters), it becomes near impossible to produce a photo that is indisputably of a P-38L in the ETO.

We do know, however, that production of the J ended in the spring of 1944, and Ls were reaching other fronts as distant as India (459th FS) by that summer (Squadron/Signal P-38 Lightning In Action, page 42). Lockheed had finally gotten the 'bugs' out of their manufacturing lines and new Ls were pouring out of Burbank and other scenic locales.

At that time, the 8th was still operating P-38s with the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FGs, and the 9th had the 474th, 367th and 370th FGs. While the 479th flew its last Lightning mission in September, it defies all logic that combat and operational losses in the 9th AF units would be replaced by anything other than the latest and greatest version of P-38 available. After all, every one of those pilots was a voter/taxpayers' son...

One letter home to the effect that "we're getting old, used P-38Js to replace our losses instead of the new L models" would provide an ambitious Congressman with a crusade that might lead to higher office (remember how Truman caught the public eye? -he chaired a Senate commission investigating wastage and corruption in war industries, if I'm not mistaken). Certainly, the three 9th AF groups (especially the 474th, which flew Lightnings to war's end)would have gotten new Ls to replace their used up Js.

In Italy, the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs flew Js and Ls, according to Green and Swanborough's US Army Fighters Part 2. The 82nd took their L models into combat for the first time in September 1944, according to Jeffrey Ethell's P-38 Lightning.

So in short, I have no definitive record to say that the L operated with the 8th or 9th AF. The record shows that they were available in numbers by late that summer, and that there were 3 P-38 FGs operating in the 9th AF until after the New Year, and one through May of '45. Logically, they must have flown some L model Lightnings by November 1944 at the latest.

cheers

horseback

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 02:59 PM
I have a photo of an L-1 in Europ, and also pilot quotes of fighting the "Jerry" in there "new and more powerfull L" aircraft in books and online. It did fly in the ETO, but in limited numbers. I doubt any squad was equiped with all L's, so there would not be a squad listed as flying L's, but when a J needed to be replaced, they replaced them with L's. Also, by the time the L was introduced, all J's were equiped with the L's equipment like dive flaps and aileron boost. The only thing they did not get was the more powerfull F-30 engine.

So, I would rather call the P-38 L (Non-late) a P-38J Late, and a P-38 L Late a P-38L. That would be more histoical. Only would need a quick texture change on the L's skin to remove the landing light from the leading edge of the left wing. I never modeled the guncam in the bomb pylon for the L and that was the other identifying feature of the searies.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:01 PM
In Italy, the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs flew Js and Ls, according to Green and Swanborough's US Army Fighters Part 2. The 82nd took their L models into combat for the first time in September 1944, according to Jeffrey Ethell's P-38 Lightning.

THAT was what I was looking for. Ethell is a good source for facts.

This should not be a difficult thing to find for the 9th. A lot of reasons they don't get the L's. I mean, logic has nothing to do with it, or the 8th would have gotten the first P-51's.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:02 PM
Also. How many? The conventional wisdom is that L's replaced worn out J's. There has to be a source for the actual numbers somewhere.

Personally, I don't think there were a lot of L's flying over Europe.

lrrp22
08-05-2005, 03:04 PM
horseback,

Oddly enough, many 8th AAF fighters were passed to the 9th as attrition replacements. I know that numerous VIII FC P-47's were passed to 9th AAF FG's as the 8th's FG's converted to Mustangs. The 56th passed a number of its D's to the 9th when it began to recieve M's. Donovan Smith's 'Ole C*ck III' became 'WoooHooo' in the 405th FG, for instance.

It's very likely that the same was done with the lower-hour P-38J's made available in the Summer of '44. The 9th's groups tended to go through aircraft somewhat faster than the 8th's 'glamour boys'.


Like Slickun, I agree that P-38L's were fairly common over Europe.



Originally posted by horseback:

...it defies all logic that combat and operational losses in the 9th AF units would be replaced by anything other than the latest and greatest version of P-38 available.

Hristo_
08-05-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Don't try to smuggle P-38L Late into the P-38 lot. It is a what-if plane, unlike rest of the group.

Only in your clown filled world troll boy. In reality, over 3000 P-38 L's were produced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no, you know very well of what I speak.

P-38Ls were mass produced and flown. But only on 130 octane fuel though.

None of them flew on 150 octane, aka P-38L Late.

P-38L - a historical plane
P-38L Late - a what-if plane

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:15 PM
Gibbage, points all taken.

But, I'm telling you, there is a record somewhere that we can get to see exactly what happened in this matter.

horseback
08-05-2005, 03:31 PM
I doubt that many P-47s used operationally by 8th AF units actually found their way to the 9th AF. It is my understanding that there was a large reserve of the major fighter types being rotated through Northern Ireland and in the area of the western English ports. In most cases, I think you'll find that the transfers were a 'paper transaction', a movement of 'ownership' of unreassembled aircraft not yet assigned an operational home.

In the case of the bubbletop Jugs, which had extra fuel tanks and more advanced engines, I would expect them to be 'bumped to the head of the line' for the 8th's P-47 escort groups, and the razorbacks handed down to the 9th AF.

cheers

horseback

PS-I'm not sure that the 354th's assignment to the 9th AF is a valid example of illogic. The Merlin Mustang, developed from the RAF's Army Cooperation fighter, was originally viewed as a backup for the proven long-range Lightning...

faustnik
08-05-2005, 03:34 PM
Faustnik, are you going to deny that there has been a division into red and blue cliques on these boards, with further subdivisions into East and West red teams, with some of these red teams joining in piling on the 'American' red camp?

Yes, I deny that the board is divided into "red and blue cliques". You are projecting your own prejudices onto others. That a "blue lobby" is having undo influence on Oleg's decision making is ridiculous. I'm sorry you see posts on this forum as merely "us against them" issues.

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:


Oh no, you know very well of what I speak.

P-38Ls were mass produced and flown. But only on 130 octane fuel though.

None of them flew on 150 octane, aka P-38L Late.

P-38L - a historical plane
P-38L Late - a what-if plane

Allisons never reted there engines with 100/150 as stated in Vee's for Victory. The 1725HP was rated using only 100/130 fuel.

So most likley no P-38 L's were flown with 100/150 fuel since it was not needed. Im guessing they could push beyond 1725HP WITH 100/150. Like they do at Reno? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, does anyone know what sort of fuel they use at Reno? Those thigs are pumping 3000+HP out of 1600HP engines!

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:44 PM
Hristo, I'm fairly confident the L didn't need 150 octane to get the xtra HP.

We're still waiting for someone to tell us exactly HOW, WHEN, and WHERE pilots availed themselves of the -30's extra 200 rpm and 125 HP.

One more question. Excuse me if I don't get the numbers exactly right.
The J's are listed as having a top end of like 414 on military power. An additional 300 hp at WEP got them to 424 or so.

It does not make sense to me that an extra 250 hp available from the L's -30 gets the bird up to the mid 440's. Especially as the P-38 is getting very close to the point where its drag starts the geometric rise. In other words, it takes more and more HP to get that extra mph as you go faster.

To paraphrase,
In the J, a lighter bird, 300 hp required to go from 414 to 424. 10 mph on 300 hp. 1 mph per 30 hp.

In the L, a heavier bird, 250 hp gives it 20 mph or so, from 424 to 444. Starting at a higher speed, closer to the bird's max mach number. 1 mph per 12.5 hp.

I asked bolillo_loco this and he said he didn't know, that I should look in AHT and find the formula for computing top speeds.

Anybody got a take on this? I doubt the extra 200 rpm made the difference. Maybe it did.

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yes, I deny that the board is divided into "red and blue cliques". You are projecting your own prejudices onto others. That a "blue lobby" is having undo influence on Oleg's decision making is ridiculous. I'm sorry you see posts on this forum as merely "us against them" issues.

But there clearly ARE groups on each side of the line. Not the forum in general, but loud and active groups within the forum. Kurd is a good example of someone who is firmly on the blue side and everyone who humps his leg, and then with have a few red supporters like me, Skychimp, and Copper and everyone who humps our leg. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:


One more question. Excuse me if I don't get the numbers exactly right.
The J's are listed as having a top end of like 414 on military power. An additional 300 hp at WEP got them to 424 or so.


If you read the pilots manual, you will notice right away that the P-38L stats are an exact photocopy of the J's even though there were changes. I think thats an error. Bodies book states the L with the up-rated engines could do 440MPH at its critical alt. He also noted that the top speed was dangerously close to the dive limit of 460MPH at that alt.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:48 PM
Horseback, when the 354th got the Mustangs, everyone was aware that they were the last, best hope for an effective escort.

I know why the things went to the 354th..throw in at that point the P-51's reputation was as a low level groundpounder...thus a unit in the ground pounding 9th gets them.

Still defies logic...a long range fighter to the 9th in late 1943..

Anyway, I'll try for a better example next time.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Yeah, but Gibbage, the planes are apparently nearly identical except for the engines.

We are asked to believe that the 250 extra hp on the -30 were over twice as effective at adding mph as hp additions on the J were. Even as, you agree, the plane was obviously getting close to the geometric rise in drag.

Does not compute.

On a virtually identical airframe, just a bit heavier.

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Yeah, but Gibbage, the planes are apparently nearly identical except for the engines.

We are asked to believe that the 250 extra hp on the -30 were over twice as effective at adding mph as hp additions on the J were. Even as, you agree, the plane was obviously getting close to the geometric rise in drag.

Does not compute.

On a virtually identical airframe, just a bit heavier.

There was still the addition of the dive flaps and fuel pump's. That adds weight and a slight bit of drag. Also something like 200LB. With everything else the same, it should account for something. Even a few MPH less on top speed. Maybe slight big of climb. More fuel burn. Something. But NOTHING is shown differant.

Also, were are you getting 424MPH from?

horseback
08-05-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Faustnik, are you going to deny that there has been a division into red and blue cliques on these boards, with further subdivisions into East and West red teams, with some of these red teams joining in piling on the 'American' red camp?

Yes, I deny that the board is divided into "red and blue cliques". You are projecting your own prejudices onto others. That a "blue lobby" is having undo influence on Oleg's decision making is ridiculous. I'm sorry you see posts on this forum as merely "us against them" issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Undue influence on Oleg?" Not necessarily. Oleg's a big boy, and has actually been known to admit mistakes.

I do see the same names pushing for 'blue' planes' improvements in DMs & FMs (some entirely valid, I agree), and deriding those of us who want similar treatment for 'red' planes. There seems to be an added political undercurrent in some of the more blatent cases who specialize in trashing American planes specifically.

I see very few who actually make the effort to be balanced that you do, but my life experience leads me to be more cynical than you about my fellow man and woman.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
08-05-2005, 04:04 PM
Gibbage, I'm not sure you are understanding my question.

I am doubting the P-38L got up to 440+ with only 250 added HP over the P-38J.

The J, as I am told over and over by Kahuna, Aerial Target and bolillo_loco, did 424 or so on WEP (1600 hp).

414 or so on military (1425 hp).

So, for 300 hp or so ther is a 10 mph speed jump, on the J, from military to WEP.

The L adds 125 hp, or 250 total, to the WEP rating of the J. We are told that this results in a much bigger gain in speed, from 424 to 444.

Does not compute. The engines are getting more efficient as speed rises.

horseback
08-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Horseback, when the 354th got the Mustangs, everyone was aware that they were the last, best hope for an effective escort.

I know why the things went to the 354th..throw in at that point the P-51's reputation was as a low level groundpounder...thus a unit in the ground pounding 9th gets them.

Still defies logic...a long range fighter to the 9th in late 1943..

Anyway, I'll try for a better example next time.
The 55th FG arrived in the UK in August 1943 and became operational (in a limited role) in the P-38H in October, shortly after the 354th made it to England and learned that they would be getting Mustangs, which they became operational (in a limited role) in by November, just before the 20th FG got on line in more P-38Hs. The severity of the winter that year badly limited 8th AF operations over Europe until February 1944, so all the groups flying P-38s and Mustangs essentially started at the same time, in terms of combat experience.

While the P-38 was the fighter of choice in EVERY OTHER THEATER THE USAAF OPERATED IN, the Merlin Mustang was better known as a development of a fairly fast low altitude recon/ground attack fighter/dive bomber.

The Mustang's success and North American's brilliant preparation for its mass production make it a fine example of 'failure being an orphan and success having a thousand fathers,' as the saying goes.

cheers

horseback

lrrp22
08-05-2005, 04:34 PM
horseback,

The 8th did in fact pass operationally used airplanes to the 9th. Donovan Smith flew 'OC III' from July '44 to Jan '45 when the 405th FG took it on charge and re-named it 'Wooohooo'. The 78th FG passed its Jugs (almost entirely bubbletops) to the 9th in January, as well.



Originally posted by horseback:
I doubt that many P-47s used operationally by 8th AF units actually found their way to the 9th AF. It is my understanding that there was a large reserve of the major fighter types being rotated through Northern Ireland and in the area of the western English ports. In most cases, I think you'll find that the transfers were a 'paper transaction', a movement of 'ownership' of unreassembled aircraft not yet assigned an operational home.

In the case of the bubbletop Jugs, which had extra fuel tanks and more advanced engines, I would expect them to be 'bumped to the head of the line' for the 8th's P-47 escort groups, and the razorbacks handed down to the 9th AF.

cheers

horseback

PS-I'm not sure that the 354th's assignment to the 9th AF is a valid example of illogic. The Merlin Mustang, developed from the RAF's Army Cooperation fighter, was originally viewed as a backup for the proven long-range Lightning...

Gibbage1
08-05-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Gibbage, I'm not sure you are understanding my question.

I am doubting the P-38L got up to 440+ with only 250 added HP over the P-38J.

The J, as I am told over and over by Kahuna, Aerial Target and bolillo_loco, did 424 or so on WEP (1600 hp).

414 or so on military (1425 hp).

So, for 300 hp or so ther is a 10 mph speed jump, on the J, from military to WEP.

The L adds 125 hp, or 250 total, to the WEP rating of the J. We are told that this results in a much bigger gain in speed, from 424 to 444.

Does not compute. The engines are getting more efficient as speed rises.

I have never heard this 424MPH number. Not in my books, pilots manual, or any of the P-38 threads that I have read. Can you link me please? Not calling you a lier, its just this is the first I have heard of it.

Slickun
08-05-2005, 05:04 PM
Horseback wrote:

While the P-38 was the fighter of choice in EVERY OTHER THEATER THE USAAF OPERATED IN,

Yet in the ETO and MTO the P-51 replaced the P-38 in unit after unit. The P-51 shot down fighters at higher rates than the P-38, way WAY higher in the ETO, substantially higher in the MTO. Excuses and all, it is an historical fact.

In the CBI the P-38 was a rarity.

In the PTO the Lightning matches your statement.

horseback
08-05-2005, 05:05 PM
9th AF was still using a number of low time razorbacks with the old 'skinny' props at that point, so these would be cases of 'trading up' to the more capable bubbletops, rather than getting a batch of clapped out, shot up hand me downs...exceptions rather than the rule, I think.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
08-05-2005, 05:18 PM
Gibbage, sorry, man. The number is one I've gotten from all these discussions lately about the P-38, from other posters. Kahuna was the guy that set me straight on this, over on the thread started by kurfurst. Or it may have been theuber P-38 thread. I have no link, no source, other than discussions there.

Like you, I am very reluctant to call anyone a liar.

The only top end I'm familiar with in all MY reading is 398 at military (1425) and 416 at wep (1600), from AHT. Well, I have some other stuff, it says 414 for just about every version. "414" appeaars to be the P-38 equivalent to the "437" for the Mustang in a lot of books.

Using THOSE numbers we are led to believe that a 350 hp increase raised the top speed 18 mph on the J, but the next 250 hp raised it some 24-28 mph, as drag increased,on the nearly identical L.


What numbers do you have for the J's top end at 2850 and 3200 hp? Without quibbling over the numbers, I'm guessing the same question will exist. Why did the engines get more efficient as speed increased?

lrrp22
08-05-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Horseback wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While the P-38 was the fighter of choice in EVERY OTHER THEATER THE USAAF OPERATED IN,

Yet in the ETO and MTO the P-51 replaced the P-38 in unit after unit. The P-51 shot down fighters at higher rates than the P-38, way WAY higher in the ETO, substantially higher in the MTO. Excuses and all, it is an historical fact.

In the CBI the P-38 was a rarity.

In the PTO the Lightning matches your statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Even in the PTO, VII Fighter Command flew P-51D's and P-47N's for the Very Long Range B-29 escorts- not P-38L's. The three P-51D groups on Iwo Jima could have easily been equipped with P-38L's at that late date, but they weren't.

horseback
08-05-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Yet in the ETO and MTO the P-51 replaced the P-38 in unit after unit. The P-51 shot down fighters at higher rates than the P-38, way WAY higher in the ETO, substantially higher in the MTO. Excuses and all, it is an historical fact. Not in 1943, it didn't. Lockheed had a terrible time trying (unsuccessfully for the most part) to keep up with the demand in the first half of America's involvement in the war (notice how nicely I avoided implying US participation from 1939?), but the Lightning was unquestionably the best bet to solve the long range escort problem in early or mid 1943, when the actual aircraft were being built tested, and shipped overseas... The Mustang (in terms of a simple to fly, effective long range escort fighter) was a potential gleam in everyone's eye in 1943. It had proven nothing yet, and followed the Allison engined P-51A operationally by only a few months.

The Lightning's superiority in range and performance (in the right hands) over the LW and IJN/A inventories was considered a proven fact by late 1943.

In the CBI the P-38 was a rarity.

In the PTO the Lightning matches your statement Agreed, the Lightning only flew with two squadrons in the CBI, but they outperformed every other available type, and if enough had been available (see above), they would have replaced the P-40/47 in every 14th AF Fighter Group, just as the the 5th and 13th Air Forces desired to do in the Pacific. The later initial introduction of the Merlin Mustang in the CBI was not as successful as expected, due to wingflex/ammo feed problems of the B/C models.

Again, we're talking about hindsight, not necessarily a rewriting of history. The success of the Mustang as a faster, cheaper, easier to fly alternative to the Lightning was not predictable, and no responsible professional US Army Air Force officer (with the power or influence to do so) would have committed the future of the air war to it in the fall/winter of 1943. Now, however, the success of the Mustang and all that has been written about it tends to overshadow their relative positions at the time of their deployments in the ETO.

cheers

horseback

Hoarmurath
08-05-2005, 07:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

249th_Harrier
08-05-2005, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Steinhof's comments are, of course, his opinions. He is welcome to them, and I love reading stuff like that.

I bought the Osprey book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO and MTO" by Stanaway (I think that's the title, I'm at work) some time ago.

In the introduction there is a comment that in a poll of former LW pilots, after the war, of which allied planes they thought were best, or feared the most, something like that, the P-38 placed last, the Spitfire first.

It seems that amongst the surviving LW pilots some had a different opinion of the P-38.

The pilots that flew the captured American planes felt the p-51 was the best of the lot. That from "Strangers in a Strange Land" by Stapher.

Zemke felt the P-51 was the best plane of the three types he flew as a Group Leader (P-51, P-38, P-47).

Galland had 100+ kills in the West. Don't just throw out everything he said.

There are a LOT od different opinions on every WW2 type. Cherry picking a few favorable ones does only that, shows favorable comments.

The P-38 had many good qualities. It is easy to find good things to say about it.

Skychimp's comment says much more than what he typed. Anybody else pick up on it?

Slickun, thanks for your comments. I just finished Steinhoff's book about the defense of Sicily. Galland is a character in the book as well, since he is Steinhoff's commander at that point. The real heydey of the p-38 in Europe was late '42 to early '44 in the MTO, when it was the highest performance aircraft in the USAAF arsenal in the theater. The MTO p-38 groups had the chance to start out slow during North Africa, learn how to fly and fight, how to maintain their machines correctly, the kind of fuzzy boots to wear at high alt, etc. They had the opportunity to get the most out of the machine, the way the Soviets got the most out of the p-39.

Steinhoff says that the p-38 stands out in his memory as the most dangerous opponent he faced, although it could be that he remembers '43 over Sicily and Italy more vividly than he remembers '44 over Romania (he pretty much states this in the epilogue of the book). Galland flat out says the p-38 is a lumbering unmaneuverable plane on par with the Me-110. This is not just a difference of opinion, one of these statements has to be incorrect.

Steinhoff flew against these fighter groups until he was transferred to reich defense, so late '42 until sometime '44 (not sure exactly). He is credited with 5 p-38 kills, and was shot down by one. He should have known if the p-38 was unmaneuverable like an Me-110. Galland was general of fighters after '42. I don't see how he would have the firsthand knowledge Steinhoff had from flying and fighting with these groups for two years. If Galland just pulled this statement out of his nether regions, does that mean his other statements are suspect as well?

Gibbage1
08-06-2005, 01:05 AM
There are reports that a P-38 pilot was telling a story how he was dogfighting a 109D9 on the deck to a group of pilots including Galland. The P-38 had the upper hand, landed a few shots, but had to brake away. When the pilot ended his story, Galland was pale white with a shocked expression on his face. When the pilot asked Gallaned what was wrong, Galland burst out "You **** near killed me!". Apperantly Galland was flying the 190D9 the pilot shot up!

If this is true, and the P-38 beat Galland in a 1 on 1 duel at treetop altitude, then Galland is very much wrong about the P-38 being no better then a 110, or the D-9 was just horribly bad as a fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wayno7777
08-06-2005, 12:54 PM
Gib, Galland relates that story in "The First and the Last"...

mynameisroland
08-06-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There are reports that a P-38 pilot was telling a story how he was dogfighting a 109D9 on the deck to a group of pilots including Galland. The P-38 had the upper hand, landed a few shots, but had to brake away. When the pilot ended his story, Galland was pale white with a shocked expression on his face. When the pilot asked Gallaned what was wrong, Galland burst out "You **** near killed me!". Apperantly Galland was flying the 190D9 the pilot shot up!

If this is true, and the P-38 beat Galland in a 1 on 1 duel at treetop altitude, then Galland is very much wrong about the P-38 being no better then a 110, or the D-9 was just horribly bad as a fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hi Gib

If you look at this example then we could draw a parallel with the P38 ace ( you know the guy - mentioned in massive P38 thread ) who got shot down and killed by Ki 43 while flying P38 and that was 4 P38's vs 1 Ki 43

In this universe therefore we can deduct:

1st place Ki43
2nd place P38
3rd place Fw d9

All Gallands story shows us is that even a great fighter pilot can get rusty if he is consigned to a desk long enough and that any pilot can get a lucky break in a dogfight.

regards Boemher

Skalgrim
08-06-2005, 03:08 PM
americans has from west ally the biggest overclaiming

/4 is sure more right




Originally posted by SkyChimp:
In European aerial combat, the P-38 bested Luftwaffe aircraft by better than 2 to 1. I guess if the Germans weren't getting shot down by a particular plane at a rate of 10 to 1, they thought the enemy plane sucked.

Makes sense.

Gibbage1
08-07-2005, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

1st place Ki43
2nd place P38
3rd place Fw d9

All Gallands story shows us is that even a great fighter pilot can get rusty if he is consigned to a desk long enough and that any pilot can get a lucky break in a dogfight.

regards Boemher

Dude. I was being sarcastic. There are people that are drawing conclusions based on single instances. For instance the legendary FW-190 that survived "200+" .50 cal hits. A lot of blue pilots here CONSTANTLY use that ONCE INSTANCE as a reason why all FW-190's should be almost bullet proof. But it seems at the same time they constantly discredit story's of many P-47's comming home with similar damage.

Also, I was making a point. Galland has said many things, some contradict each other. If my memory serves, he was once asked what aircraft he most respected and he said the P-38. In the same interview, he said he let the rookies have the P-38's. And after all that, he lost a 1 on 1 dogfight with a P-38. With all that flip-flopping, I would tend to take Gallands words with a grain of salt.

PBNA-Boosher
08-07-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
He obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Kurfurst said the P-38 was a rotten fighter. You think some testimonial from a pilot that actually faced it can change that fact?

By Rotten, do you mean horrible, or the German equivalent of the word "group," meaning it should fight in groups. That I agree with.

BigKahuna_GS
08-07-2005, 12:04 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Horseback quote:
I'm not quite in AerialTarget's camp; I concede that the Mustang and the Thunderbolt were better suited to the ETO high alt escort role. I simply would like to see the Lightning's (and the Mustang's and the Jug's)real virtues modelled in similar proportion to the blue team's aircraft.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Slickun--This reflects my attitude almost exactly.

Keep up with the coffee, your posts are amongst my favorites to read.

Now. Do you have any information about the availability of the L in the ETO? This question is vexing me.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



Several excellent posts Horseback !

Sorry I did not give you credit for many P38 pilot quotes couldnt remember where I found them--and I have collected many from various sources.

I am in total agreement with you on all the subjects you covered here including Oleg's usage of foreign information to model US aircraft--that spells inacuracies and non-historical performance models for US aircraft in many respects. To put things in perspective the ruskies rejected the P47 & P51, perfering of course the P39/63. The red pilots demonstrated a large dislike for the P47 and dubbed it "definetly not a fighter". That sentiment is accurately displayed in this flight sim. Why else would the P47 fly like a Hienkle He-111 when first introduced into FB ?

The actual P47 is amazingly agile for it's size, stable, fast, and has a very quick roll rate.

I have traded emails over this very subject with Oleg for 2 years now. Each group of pilots utilised the strengths of their particular A/C for the respective theater of operations they were fighting in.

The P39 was known as the "Iron Dog" in the PTO and for the most part disliked with huge requests for replacemnts with P38s. The P39 in the Eastern Front is loved by the russain pilots but then again rejected by the RAF & USAAF on the Western Front as not being able to "compete with the Luftwaffe". It all depended how the fighters flight parameters matched up to the altitudes and speeds of the theater of operations. The P47 & P51 were obviously never needed on the Eastern Front as high altitude escorts, so how well could these pilots know the capabilities and tactical fighting dictums of 8th AF pilots on the Western Front? How could russain pilots who flew at low altitudes over short distances ever know and utilise the strengths of the P47 & P51 ?


It is interesting that many of the same questions that have already been answered keep repeating themselves in various P38 threads:

The P38L had the from the beginning/factory the V1710-F30 engine rated at 3200rpm @ 1725hp. This horsepower rating was achieved by Allison with 100/130 avgas.

A P38 pilot simply had to push through the safety wire gate on the throttle quadrant to select the MAP/rpm.

From 9th AF P38 Pilots I spoke with :

In training in the U.S. we used 91 octane fuel in the P-38. The Allisons were restricted to,

Take-off--- 3000- RPM- @ 45''
Climb-- 2600- RPM- @ 35''
Cruise-- 2300- RPM- @ 28''

So you could imagine the performance differences with the low rated octane fuels the germans were using on captured US aircraft would give them a skewed view of performance.

Again 9th AF Pilots:
Standard operations for all P-38s was based on 3000 RPM and 54''. The horsepower output was based on the dash number and the set-up of the engine and the use of 100-130 fuel.

Take-off---- 3000 RPM @ 54''--- 15 minutes
War Emergency------------- 3000 RPM @ 60''--- 5 minutes
Military-- 3000 RPM @ 54''-- 15 minutes
Max Continues---------- 2600 RPM @ 44''
Max Cruise------- 2300 RPM @35''
Min Cruise------ 2200 RPM @28''
We used------ 2200 RPM @22''

Horsepower @ 3000 RPM @ 54'' = 1425
3000 RPM @ 60'' = 1600

"There was a safety wire gate at 54''. If we went through the gate to 60'' plus, the crew-chief would pull a engine check. In combat in Europe the available fuel was 100/130. During the winter of 1943/44 there was a heavier leaded fuel in use that caused trouble with the Allisons due to the long intake system and very low tempts at altitude. Tony LaVier did most of the test flying on the P-38 engine problems. When he was in Europe at the Lockheed Facilities in Ireland he increased the crankcase pressure and was able to correct the detention problems with the Allison."

(Notice that Lindhberg taught lower RPMs and higher MAP for better fuel consumption--much lower RPMs that is listed above was used in the PTO.)

9th AF Pilots:
"In combat we used what ever was necessary to perform the mission. I would rather blow the engines out of the mounts than be a sitting duck." This included the F-30 engines in the P38L.

We know that all RAF/USAAF squadrons were looking to get as much performance as possible out of their aircraft to have an edge or advantage over axis aircraft. Many P47 pilots had the waste gate stops removed in order to have maximum power when needed even though catistrophic engine failure could result. One P47 pilot was told by his crew chief that his engine would blow after 2 minutes with no waste gate stops, this same pilot flew against (2) 190s on the deck for 10 minutes at maximum power settings without engine damage. P38 pilots were also known to have the waste gates adjusted by their crew chiefs for more power.

The Brits were more formal with their over-boosting and test results. There is a RAF paper trail of which sqadrons and where were running on higher boost levels. The USAAF like the Nike ads--just did it. There is little formal information on performance increases except pilot reports and explanations from crew chiefs on what modifacations they made. There are some official reports form 8th AF with 150octane fuel and increases in MAP which of course would result in greater performance. There is also Navy tests of Corsairs performing with higher boost levels, but which squadrons and where are hard to find.

P38Ls served with the 9th AF and depending upon the time frame made up a good percetage of the squadrons.

The P38J could pull speeds in excess of 430mph+ at altitude depending upon MAP/RPM selected so it should not come as a big surprise that the P38L could do 440mph+.

In Bodie's P47 book "From Seversky to Victory", Bodie refers to the P38L as going over 440mph+ and racing P47s at altitude. Those pilots were quite competative in the ETO and money could be made on races back to base.


____

Slickun
08-07-2005, 04:14 PM
C'mon, Kahuna. Please.

Give us SOMETHING to back up the above statements:

Lots of L's in the 9th.

P-38J's exceeding 430 mph.

I swear, you posted the following numbers for the J in a previous thread:
414 @ military (1425/2850 hp); 424 @wep (1600/3200 hp). If these are not the numbers, feel free to correct.

How many more HP did it need to clear 430 mph? AFAIK, higher HP in the J was available only from 150 octane fuel, possibly for a few months in one fighter group in the 8th. 150 allowing it to run, maybe, at 66" map. From what I've been told now, 70" was needed to get to 1725 in the -30.

But, the L went even faster than that? Over 440? It got another 10 or so mph from what, 100 hp total or so it would add from going from 66 to 70" map?

I don't think there's enough horsepower here to justify the speed claims.

My question still stands. If 350 added hp was needed to gain 18-20 or so mph from military to wep in the J (from AHT, it gains even less from your numbers), how does 250 more hp, at higher speeds, give even more? In a very heavy and draggy airplane?

Kahuna, tossing around numbers is driving me crazy. Bodie or not, the figures don't make sense.

Slickun
08-07-2005, 04:49 PM
Look, lets do a baseline, unscientific survey on a source I have. "America's 100,000" by Dean.

P-38J top speed, 17,500 lbs, at 2850 hp (military power)= 396 mph.
P-38J top speed, 17,500 lbs, at 3200 h (combat power) = 415 mph.

The above speeds are as close as I can tell from looking at a graph. If I'm one or two mph off, so be it, I tried to get it right.

That's 19 mph difference after an addition of 350 hp. 18.42 hp per mph gain. This is a baseline that has a database to back it up. No speculation. We can argue about AHT, but there it is.

We are asked to believe that the L could go 440+. I'll say....442?

From 415 to 442 is an increase of 27 mph. With the added 250 hp the L had over the J, that works out 9.26 hp per mph. Does not compute. Twice as efficient as speed rises?

If an added 250 hp was gleaned from another 10 inches of map, that works out to 25 hp per inch. A J running at 66 inches map would produce 3350 hp, or another 150 hp. Getting to 330 mph plus, say, 332, means an increase of 17 mph from 415 (normal v max), or 8.82 hp per mph.

That means an L would go 10 mph faster on 100 added HP from the 4 added inches of map to get to 70, or 10 hp per mph.

To summarize the hp per mph figures claimed, using the AHT database:


396-415 = 18.42 hp needed for each added mph.

415-442 = 9.26 hp/mph.

415-432 (recent J top speed claim) = 8.82 hp/mph

432-442 (speed differential between J and L claim) = 10 hp/mph.

What is going on? Somebody clear this up for me.

Slickun
08-07-2005, 05:12 PM
Several folks posted opinions trying to disqualify the opinions I posted.

Remember, I was simply adding OPINIONS that others had about the P-38, different from Steinhoffs. And that's all his comments were, an opinion. Was he qualified to make a good opinion? Of course. I'd read it before, as I have read countless comments and opinions of WW2 types, by pilots. I love to do it, as do all of us.

But, to throw out Zemke's opinions is, well, specious. He is the US equivalent of Steinhoff. He flew in combat for as long as any US pilot except the one that made the statement in Horseback's sig line. He shot down a lot of planes, for an American, led one of the outstanding units in the war (56th FG), and led full fighter groups of P-47, P-51, and P-38's. AFAIK, he is unique in that, except for maybe that same fellow in Horsebacks sig (he led a few P-38 ops "on loan" from the 4th FG). If we can't listen to him, we can't listen to any American pilot or leader.

Throw out a survey of a large number of surviving LW pilots? C'mon. Any survey works best with a large sampling number.

Throw out the opinions of the unit charged with evaluating and flying captured US types, to train LW types on how to combat them? Just toss that out? Fellows who were also LW pilots? Guys with maybe the biggest set of flying experiences in the war, as far as types are concerned?

C'mon. Their opinions count too, just as Steinhoffs do.

Don't listen to Galland? The leader of the fighter wing of the LW, who ended the war a squadron leader flying ME-262's? He was flying long enough to almost be killed by a P-38. He had more kills in the west than Steinhoff did. He listened to his pilots. He planned strategies. But, throw his opinion out. Yeah.

My Dad has an opinion on this. He had mucho hours in a bunch of US AAF types. He dogfought every production fighter the US produced for almost 3 decades. Tell me not to listen to him.

Horseback, you are killing me. You don't agree with Steinhoff, but disqualify all the guys I posted that agree with you. Killing me.

Thing is, they ARE just opinions. Trying to decide who's is more valid is just an opinion as well. I have NO doubt Steinhoff was sincere. As are the statements from LW types about other US types, sported in some sig lines of posters here.

In combat, there is a better way to judge the worth of airplanes. Results.

Slickun
08-07-2005, 05:19 PM
I have no sig line. I have no agenda here. I like the P-51 and P-47. My Dad flew them. They were American. I like the P-38, because it WAS a twin that flew like a single. Because two of my heroes growing up, Bong and McGuire, flew them. Because it is amazingly cool looking. Because I grew up on US Air Force Bases, listening to stories of pilots that flew them.

Some of the claims of its supporters don't make sense to me right now. I don't like things that don't make sense. I want the gap between claims and data I'm familiar with to close. That's all. Not calling anybody a liar. Just wanting closure on a couple of things.

Hoarmurath
08-07-2005, 06:12 PM
slickun, check PM

horseback
08-07-2005, 07:12 PM
Sorry I left you hanging so long there, Slickun. I took my sons to the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center for the day and we saw the IMAX film "Fighter Pilot: Red Flag". We had a blast, and I recommend the movie to any fighter aviation fan.

Now, as for my 'dismissal' of Zemke, it was not a dismissal. Zemke is a lot closer to being the American equivalent of Molders than of Steinhoff, terrific leader, tactician, professional officer and military theorist. Unfortunately, the requirements of doing the best possible job in combat essentially required him to burn more than a few professional bridges, so he never earned the General's stars he so richly deserved.

I literally just finished re-reading Zemke's Wolfpack, which he co-wrote with Roger Freeman this past week, and I remembered what he said about it. Very simply, he took the 479th FG command because Schilling flat-out rejected the job. Schilling wanted no part of the P-38. Zemke was feeling a bit stale with the 56th, and was looking for a challange, and he knew the 479th was scheduled to transition to the Mustang in a month or two.

He was on record as being more than a little miffed when he learned that during his absence that spring (when he narrowly avoided having his Stateside leave turn into a permanent desk job for Monk Hunter), Schilling had rejected getting Mustangs for the 56th (before D-Day, if I'm not mistaken). I suspect that Zemke was more excited about getting Mustangs than he was about getting a new group, but in any case, he indicates that the 479th had been unsuccessful at least in part because the men previously tasked with leading it weren't up to the job of commanding on the ground.

The result, he makes clear, was hours of paperwork and administrative housecleaning instead of the flying that he wanted to do to familiarize himself with the Lightning. Zemke was a professional Army officer with a profound sense of duty, and he would be d**ned if he couldn't make sure that the ground organization was up to snuff, the support troops well led and taken care of. You may remember that he had to fire the CO of his support group at Halesworth with the 56th. As a new CO, he wasn't in a position to delegate administrative duties to anyone he wasn't sure he could trust.

In any case, Zemke didn't get that much time to wring out the Lightning the way he had had the initial opportunity to do with the P-47 before the Mustangs finally arrived. He certainly made no attempt to develop a better tactical approach to get the most out of it, in the way he done for the Jug. He did not have the necessary two or three months of almost daily fliying time in the Lightning to unlock its potential and realize what it could do.

As has been said ad nauseum, it took at least twice as long to master the P-38 and be able to fulfill its full potential. Zemke didn't have that time, and there were few pilots in the ETO who actually knew how to take the Lightning to its limits. Jack Ilfrey, Sid Woods (who was in the 479th for a time before he ended up in the 4th) and John Landry are the only ones I could think of who were early-war P-38 veterans that ended up flying Lightnings again in the ETO.

At this point I should comment (and your Dad will confirm this) that building up your bag of fighter pilot tricks is done as much at the O Club as it is in the air. You talk shop all the time, bounce ideas off of each other and share insights and advice about flying as much as you do about getting laid.

Lightning pilots in the ETO were kind of isolated compared to the single engine fighter pilots. There was no cross pollinization from single-engine fighter outfits, who weren't sure which end of a Lightning to point at the enemy. In retrospect, they might have been better served swapping rounds with some RAF types, because the Lightning's strengths were more similar to the Spit's than to the Jug or Pony.

Finally, Lockheed didn't respond to their complaints in the way they would have to groups they had had a personal hand in training, like the initial outfits deployed in the Pacific, or the 1st, 14th, and 82nd FGs in the Med. When they finally did send Tony Levier and an engineering team to see why the Lightning outfits were doing so poorly in the ETO, they were shocked. These guys were doing almost everything wrong, apparently operating in accordance with the AAF's doctrines for single engine fighters, not knowing any better.

By that time, the damage had been done, and like units operating P-39s in the Pacific, a change to anything different would do more for unit morale and combat effectiveness than showing them the error of their ways and making the needed changes in operating procedure and combat philosophy.

As for Galland, I think I was clear. His combat career from early 1942 until he took command of JV-44 was essentially an occasional dip in the pool. Remember that most kills are the result of a bounce on some unsuspecting sod who never knew what hit him. Galland was lucky enough not to have someone force him to fight during most of his forays into combat during that period; that one P-38 driver may not have had the experience or skills that Galland had, but his were fresh, and he knew his airplane, and enough about his opponent's airplane to come very close to killing the Fighter General. It could just as easily been a guy in a P-47 or P-51 (or Spitfire, or Tempest...).

cheers

horseback

PS-AFAIK, Blakeslee never flew the P-38 in combat. He was bluntly opposed to big heavy fighters, and took the P-47 on sufference, by all reports. It is my understanding that he was lobbying for Mustang Ia or P-51s with the Allison engine, like Chesley Peterson before him in 1943. He apparently felt that the Mustang was the closest thing to a fighter America had in its inventory in 1942-43.

horseback
08-07-2005, 07:31 PM
Top speed is not often utilized in combat, except in the case of a long chase. You burn up a lot of fuel you need for going home...

In the case of the P-38L, I would expect that there may be a disconnect about the actual top speed, and I'm not qualified to tell you what it actually should be (lacking a P-38L of my own due to space and income issues) but the important advantage of that extra horsepower we're all squabbling about is more important for accelleration, turn and climb than going really fast in a straight line at 25,000 ft.

Accelleration and climb is where the Lightning shines vs the P-47 and P-51 (and competes well with the Axis fighters), and just a bit more could really ruin an opponent's day, coupled with that nose mounted firepower and the expectation that nothing that big and heavy can turn with m-<crash/bang!>.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
08-07-2005, 07:37 PM
slickun, drag squares with speed, so to go faster u need even more power than u would for the last step...

most evident with f1 cars, VERY fast accelorating till about 160mph, then they only accelorate slowly

Slickun
08-07-2005, 08:06 PM
Horseback wrote:


Accelleration and climb is where the Lightning shines vs the P-47 and P-51 (and competes well with the Axis fighters), and just a bit more could really ruin an opponent's day, coupled with that nose mounted firepower and the expectation that nothing that big and heavy can turn with m-<crash/bang!>

Well, we seem to agree on that at least. BTW, the PM I just got is a document that backs up AHT's top speeds for the P-38J. Right at 400 mph military, 415 combat or wep.

Mustangs running higher boosts out-accelerate the P-38L at 1725 hp. Both P-51D/Mark 4 and P-51B/C/ MarkIII at 25 pounds boost accelerate better at o feet, 250 mph starting. The lighter B/C/Mark III does markedly better. I am sure that changes with altitudes and beginning speeds.

P-51D's at lower boosts (72" map) compare favorably with all P-38's except the L's at 1725. P-51B/C at 72 " map do as well.

When comparing the L, I think it is relevant to do it with Mustang contemporaries, many or most were not running at 67" map.

Your opinions on the veracity of other's opinions are welcomed, and noted. I've made my points, as you have, and it is silly to go on.

Slickun
08-07-2005, 08:18 PM
Horseback wrote:

As has been said ad nauseum, it took at least twice as long to master the P-38 and be able to fulfill its full potential.

For once I will address this.

This is as much of a factor in judging a fighters worth as anything else. Expensive, gas guzzling and hard to learn are NOT POSITIVES IN A WAR. They are big negatives, and don't exist in a vacuum.

Where would a Mustang or T-Bolt pilot be if HE got twice as much training as he normally did before entering combat? If his in-training hours were doubled before he was shipped off.

Horseback, I was under the impression that Blakeslee was "on loan" for several weeks to a P-38 unit to aid their transition to combat. I could VERY easily be wrong here.

Don was probably the greatest US combat flyer of all time. He flew combat virtually the entire war, unprecedented in the US AFAIK. He was an ace. He flew in Korea, and commanded a wing in Viet-Nam if I remember. A Colonel since early WW2, he was never promoted.

Interminate
08-07-2005, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
He obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Kurfurst said the P-38 was a rotten fighter. You think some testimonial from a pilot that actually faced it can change that fact? ROTFL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you can relate to those who are delusional about their abilities, eh Tagert?

horseback
08-07-2005, 09:58 PM
re the hard to learn to 'fight' the P-38 issue: I never said that it was a positive. My point was that the P-38 was capable of doing most of the things the Mustang did, only almost 18 months earlier. At the war's outset, it was the only operational fighter we had that was capable of going toe to toe with the best the Axis had to offer. I'd consider it the purest form of the "bird in the hand" situation.

BUT it was designed to a specification for a limited 50 aircraft order for a domestic bomber interceptor, allowed by an isolationist Congress just in case the Germans managed to build their 'Amerika Bomber.' Not planned for mass production, not intended for the average pilot fresh out of training.

The initial operators of the Lightning had been carefully brought up in its mysteries. Lockheed's pilots and engineers appear to have had a very close association with the first fighter groups equipped with it, and their successes in the Southwest Pacific and North Africa made it an even more desireable commodity. Combat experienced groups transitioned to it quite successfully from both P-39s and P-40s in the Pacific. But they had seen what it could do for them in combat, and there were experienced Lightning drivers around to advise them.It was never available in sufficient numbers in those theaters where it was successful.

It required a different syllabus of training from what a few bloody-minded, over-promoted careerists decreed for all fighter pilots. The 20th, 55th, and other 8th AF P-38 operators paid for that mistake in blood. They lacked even the mentoring available to new operators of the type in Italy and the Pacific, and they didn't have combat experience in other types to lend urgency to mastering their mounts (yes, they 'should have known', but as rookies, they had no ability or moral authority to say "**** you sir, we're not ready.").

Today, a fighter pilot transitioning from say, the F-16 to the F-15 gets formal training and time in the aircraft and has to meet certain competence requirements before reporting to his first operational unit. The reason is that the lesson was written in the blood of the young men sent up unprepared for combat in the Lightning in 1943...

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-07-2005, 10:24 PM
re Blakeslee. Combat diary of the 4th FG makes no mention of his being loaned to the 20th or 55th. He may have given briefings, but I can't picture him willingly being shoehorned into a Lightning cockpit for a combat mission.

He was loaned to the 354th, and made a regular practice of taking 'his' Mustang back to Debden and having his troops chant the mantra "It's THE ship." They had seen examples of the Merlin Mustang as early as September, and there were dark mutterings when they heard they had to wait for a 9th AF group to 'prove' it.

Like Zemke, his dedication to forging an effective combat unit probably led him to burn a few bridges and limited his Air Force career. On the other hand, he could be a real horse's patoot, especially with the ground organization personnel. My Dad was a career enlisted air traffic controller, and he has a definite opinion of Colonel Don in this regard...

He may have been the greatest Air Force combat fighter pilot of all time, but the greatest American combat pilot? There are guys like Paul Tibbets to consider, and the Navy and Marines had better leader/teacher/aces as well.

Blakeslee was Pappy Boyington with better looks (and he woulda kicked Robert Conrad's @ss for suggesting that he could portray him), less marksmanship, and a boatload more luck.

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
08-07-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
I guess you can relate to those who are delusional about their abilities, eh Tagert? Well, look at the bright side, you got the *guess* part right.

PS what is your *other* handled mr. 3 posts?

AerialTarget
08-07-2005, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
BTW, the PM I just got is a document that backs up AHT's top speeds for the P-38J. Right at 400 mph military, 415 combat or wep.

Oh, and that somehow nullifies the very reliable documents that list the higher speed? I see. Say, where is this document, anyway? I see a lot of references to it being privately messaged back and forth, but no document. So, assuming it's not fabricated by Hoarmurath, it's still wrong.

Slickun, how many hours did your dad have in P-51s? How many did he have in P-38s?

Slickun
08-08-2005, 06:17 AM
AT, it is in a pdf format, and I must confess I don't know how to include it in a post here. I DO think I can e-mail it. Send me a pm, I'll e-mail it to you, gladly, and YOU can post it. Or, Hoarmurath could do it. It's a big file, lots of stuff.

You can choose to believe what you choose. No one is trying to be underhanded, or secretive.

I'm TRYING to make sense of the different claims made about top speeds. Do you have an answer to my questions, anything constructive to add, like YOUR numbers?

See, we can look at P-38J speed gains from military to combat power, because we know the hp it took to do that. 350. The P-38J and L were virtually identical in weight and drag. We can then look at the speed claims for the P-38L to see if they make sense, based on an additional 250 hp. So far they don't. Too much gain for hp available. Can you shed any light on this?

Please leave my Dad out of any personal comments. C'mon. You get piqued at me because I don't agree with you, that's fine. Welcome to the boards. This is twice you've invoked his name in discussions, and not in friendly fashions.

You want to know about my Pop, ask nice, and I'll tell you everything I know about him, his opinions about planes he flew and flew against, and his record.

You have accused me of having an anti-P-38 agernda. Look at your sig line, my friend.

My agenda here is trying to make sense of the speed claims for the P-38. Right now they don't make sense.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 06:22 AM
Horseback wrote:


He may have been the greatest Air Force combat fighter pilot of all time, but the greatest American combat pilot? There are guys like Paul Tibbets to consider, and the Navy and Marines had better leader/teacher/aces as well.

Colonel Don had, by a huge margin, the most combat stick time of any US fighter pilot. He flew props and jets, in air to air and air to ground roles. He flew against an amazing variety of foes. He didn't just lead the groups, he flew and led them as well.

Yep. I'll stack him up against anyone.

He was a jerk for sure. Not pertinent.

Hristo_
08-08-2005, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:


He was a jerk for sure.

I like him already ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

249th_Harrier
08-08-2005, 06:41 AM
Slickun, thanks for your informative comments. I still have some questions for you:



Originally posted by Slickun:
snip

Throw out the opinions of the unit charged with evaluating and flying captured US types, to train LW types on how to combat them? Just toss that out? Fellows who were also LW pilots? Guys with maybe the biggest set of flying experiences in the war, as far as types are concerned?

C'mon. Their opinions count too, just as Steinhoffs do.

Don't listen to Galland? The leader of the fighter wing of the LW, who ended the war a squadron leader flying ME-262's? He was flying long enough to almost be killed by a P-38. He had more kills in the west than Steinhoff did. He listened to his pilots. He planned strategies. But, throw his opinion out. Yeah.


snip

In combat, there is a better way to judge the worth of airplanes. Results.

Regarding a survey of pilots. This will be by definition a survey of SURVIVING pilots. As you know, the MTO '42 to early '44 was the heydey of the p-38 in Europe. There were relatively few GAF pilots involved in this theater, and very few of them survived the war. You can't get the opinions of dead German pilots.

Regarding LW tests: the one way to start a fight with FW fans is to bring up the British tests of a captured FW. It is very difficult to match the fuel and engine adjustments without technical help, which of course is not available.

My biggest issue Galland. If you read his internet interview, he says that p-38 is a pos as a dogfighter, like the Me-110. Clearly this is a false statement. I assume that Galland is trying to attract attention to himself by making outrageous statements. Do you not agree that these kind of outrageous statements cast doubt on his credibility?

Another point: I just finished reading "To Win the Winter Sky" about the air war over the Ardennes. The LW aircraft were technically on par with the Allies, but almost every combat was totally one sided, even when the numbers involved were equal (they often were). Pilot skill and training tends to trump minor differences in aircraft performance. The p-38 service in the 8th AF was affected by previous blunders. Strategic bomber theorists insisted that the bombers did not need escorts. When they realized how terribly wrong they were, there was not enough time to properly train the pilots in the 55th and 20th FG, not enough time to debug the p-38 for the 5-hour high altitude flight profile. Does that mean I totally ignore what happened in the ETO? No. By December '44, the 9th AF p-38 groups were clearly at a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, and suffered worse to LW fighters than other groups in the 9th AF. The success of the p-51 where the p-38 had failed showed its big advantages over the p-38: easy to learn, fast, reliable power plant at altitude, better cockpit heating. My argument is that the performance of the p-38 in the MTO , especially in early '44, is a better measure of what the machine was capable of. The p-38 had one huge advantage over the merlin Mustang in early '43: IT WAS AVAILABLE. There was time in '43 for the 8th AF to properly train pilots and mechanics, to run test missions and feed back the results to Lockheed. The decision was made: leave the p-38s in the MTO, let the bombers fly unescorted, this had repercussions for both p-38 pilots and bomber crews. I guess maybe one way to look at is that the p-51 was better suited to rapid force buildup and implementation than the p-38.

TAGERT.
08-08-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


He was a jerk for sure.

I like him already ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good news Slickun! All you need is CRASH's rubber stamp and it is official! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
08-08-2005, 09:13 AM
More pilots were killed by P-51's than any other type. In the MTO they supplanted the P-38 as the number one air to air killer. To agree with your argument against surveys is to agree the P-51 got the worst marks, since so many of its victims were silent.

Again, we are quibbling about opinions.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 09:24 AM
249th Harriewr wrote:


Regarding LW tests: the one way to start a fight with FW fans is to bring up the British tests of a captured FW. It is very difficult to match the fuel and engine adjustments without technical help, which of course is not available.

I'm not talking about British or American tests. I'm talking about LW pilots flying captured US planes. As a job. As a flying circus. They put in a lot of hours, and learned enough to give lessons on how to combat the types to other LW pilots. An order of magnitude of familiarization beyond flying a captured FW in one test.

There is no equivalent to this on the Allied side in WW2, afaik. I know of no occasion where allied pilots took up multiple axis types and flew them against each other. Or where allied pilots routinely flew captured types as a job, routinely, on a daily basis.

If they did, I guarantee you they would be able to form a representative opinion.

249th_Harrier
08-08-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
More pilots were killed by P-51's than any other type. In the MTO they supplanted the P-38 as the number one air to air killer. To agree with your argument against surveys is to agree the P-51 got the worst marks, since so many of its victims were silent.

Again, we are quibbling about opinions.

Slickun, I agree with you that p-51 was superior in air-to-air combat. The p-51 was easier to learn, and better suited to the rapid ramp-up of forces that happened in '44. However, late '42 to mid '44 in the MTO (before the p-51 showed up for the Ploesti campaign) the p-38 was the top gun. Not many LW pilots in this theater, active during this period, survived the war. The surviving pilots, obviously, are skewed toward those who joined the war late. I have conceded that the 9th AF p-38s were at a disadvantage in Dec '44. Just like the p-39 in soviet hands, the MTO got the most out of the p-38, but I can guarantee most surviving LW pilots would not know about it. Steinhoff was there, he saw a lot of combat, and he is known as a stright shooter. Therefore I give his opinion more credence. All opinions are not equal.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 10:42 AM
249th Harrier:

I've posted, extensively, about this in the "Uber P-38" thread.

Basically, in all the history of aerial warfare, there is maybe ONE instance where two types, flying side by side, in roughly the same numbers, same missions, same enemy, same everything, can be compared against each other in anything approaching fairness. That is the P-38 and P-51 groups flying escort for the heavies, from England, in very late 1943 and Jan-May 1944.

The results show that P-51 groups scored at a rate roughly 4 times that of the P-38 groups. Period.

In the MTO, the P-38 served twice as many group months, yet the Mustang achieved 2/3 as many kills. In a time of dwindling LW presence. It was superior there as well.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 10:49 AM
All opinions are not equal.

And this is, of course, a value judgement on which to like better. You pick, as your champion, one YOU disagree with? What's up with that?

What are we talking about? I gave a smorgasbord of opposing opinions to Steinhoff. I also said I really enjoyed and respected what he said.

You don't like a couple I posted, that's fine. I did them all off the top of my head, believe it or not. I'm not going to go look up any more. The point I was trying to make is that opinions are like ********s....we all have them and they all stink. That's all.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I had NO idea we'd spend several pages trying to tear down the opinions of people qualified to have opinions.

AerialTarget
08-08-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
See, we can look at P-38J speed gains from military to combat power, because we know the hp it took to do that. 350. The P-38J and L were virtually identical in weight and drag. We can then look at the speed claims for the P-38L to see if they make sense, based on an additional 250 hp. So far they don't. Too much gain for hp available. Can you shed any light on this?

... Not at the moment.


Originally posted by Slickun:
Please leave my Dad out of any personal comments.

You want to know about my Pop, ask nice, and I'll tell you everything I know about him, his opinions about planes he flew and flew against, and his record.

No, this is completely impersonal and totally relevant. How many hours did he have in each? I suspect it was something like two thousand to twenty.


Originally posted by Slickun:
My agenda here is trying to make sense of the speed claims for the P-38. Right now they don't make sense.

This is true, and your point about the horsepower concerns me as well. However, posting obviously false, ridiculously low speeds for the J - speeds which, I had thought, we were all aware that they were too low - is not helping the situation at all. L's top speed doesn't match with the horsepower gain? J's top speed doesn't match the boost? Fine! Start calculating. But don't go finding a lone document that has a hugely lower number than every other reliable source and go waving it about as truth.

Your P-51 kill ratio argument is also a straw man. Mustangs never operated under the same conditions as Lightnings. Also, they did not have the highest kill ratio in every theatre as you claim. But that is not the argument at the moment. Anyway, you claim that you have no agenda against the P-38, but you clearly do - even if you like it, you don't like it as much as the P-51. And you're out to prove that the P-51 was the better performing fighter - something which simply isn't true.

249th_Harrier
08-08-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All opinions are not equal.

And this is, of course, a value judgement on which to like better. You pick, as your champion, one YOU disagree with? What's up with that?

What are we talking about? I gave a smorgasbord of opposing opinions to Steinhoff. I also said I really enjoyed and respected what he said.

You don't like a couple I posted, that's fine. I did them all off the top of my head, believe it or not. I'm not going to go look up any more. The point I was trying to make is that opinions are like ********s....we all have them and they all stink. That's all.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I had NO idea we'd spend several pages trying to tear down the opinions of people qualified to have opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me back up a few steps. The p-38 to me is a bit of a historical mystery, with a lot of conflicting opinions, so like you I am curious as to where the bs ends and the truth begins. Obviously Galland and Steinhoff disagree on the performance of a particular fighter plane. Can they both be right? Sure they can, that is part of the mystery, that is why it is interesting. Am I a little hard on Galland? Maybe. I don't think it is wrong to look critically at various opinions, everyone is human, everyone has their own agenda and point of view. I have a limited library on the subject, so it is interesting to hear the opinions of people with different sources.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 02:23 PM
AT, please, gimme the figures you have. You say the ones I'm using for the J are ridiculously low, so lets see some others. I'm using two sources that match. Nothing mysterious or evil. You got some different ones, lets see them. I don't even care if they come direct from Warren Bodie, may we see them?

Kahuna, IIRC, in a previous post in another thread, said 414 for military, 424 for wep. If I remember correctly. That makes a WORSE case for 440+ in the "L". 35 hp per mph gained! That means an added 250 hp from the L's -30 would equal a top end circa 430 mph or less.

Have it your way. I'm out to "get" the P-38. Deal with it then. Report me or something. Just, when you disagree, post data of your own, or back up your opinion somehow, rather than an attack on my Dad.

If you think Mustangs never operated under the same conditions as P-38's you are mistaken, unless your definition of identical conditions is different than mine. I laid out the similarities in the ETO, Dec 1943 through May 1944, and I stand by that. Show some data of your own to dispute it. Tell us why the two types should not be compared.

BTW, insinuate I'm a liar one more time, and our correspondence is over.

Gibbage1
08-08-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:

Have it your way. I'm out to "get" the P-38. Deal with it then. Report me or something. Just, when you disagree, post data of your own, or back up your opinion somehow, rather than an attack on my Dad.


OK. Consider yourself reported to the P-38's are da uber committe. Member 1, AT.

mynameisroland
08-08-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
See, we can look at P-38J speed gains from military to combat power, because we know the hp it took to do that. 350. The P-38J and L were virtually identical in weight and drag. We can then look at the speed claims for the P-38L to see if they make sense, based on an additional 250 hp. So far they don't. Too much gain for hp available. Can you shed any light on this?

... Not at the moment.


Originally posted by Slickun:
Please leave my Dad out of any personal comments.

You want to know about my Pop, ask nice, and I'll tell you everything I know about him, his opinions about planes he flew and flew against, and his record.

No, this is completely impersonal and totally relevant. How many hours did he have in each? I suspect it was something like two thousand to twenty.


Originally posted by Slickun:
My agenda here is trying to make sense of the speed claims for the P-38. Right now they don't make sense.

This is true, and your point about the horsepower concerns me as well. However, posting obviously false, ridiculously low speeds for the J - speeds which, I had thought, we were all aware that they were too low - is not helping the situation at all. L's top speed doesn't match with the horsepower gain? J's top speed doesn't match the boost? Fine! Start calculating. But don't go finding a lone document that has a hugely lower number than every other reliable source and go waving it about as truth.

Your P-51 kill ratio argument is also a straw man. Mustangs never operated under the same conditions as Lightnings. Also, they did not have the highest kill ratio in every theatre as you claim. But that is not the argument at the moment. Anyway, you claim that you have no agenda against the P-38, but you clearly do - even if you like it, you don't like it as much as the P-51. And you're out to prove that the P-51 was the better performing fighter - something which simply isn't true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aerial I bet that in your opinion the P38 was the greatest US fighter of WW2 period - hey lets not stop there - the greatest Fighter AC of any nation during WW2. Although the AC is a favourite of yours dont be blinded to other AC. Not for one minute am I asking you to like the P38 less just be a little bit less biased in your own posts.

Slicksun isnt blowing the Mustangs trumpet. It was favoured over the P38 by most who flew both types. IMO the P47 is superior to the P38 but its all academic all three were great fighters who were in the same class.

Id still take a Fw 190 contemporary over any of them but thats my taste Im not going to manically promote one AC.

Slickun
08-08-2005, 08:58 PM
Gibbage said:

OK. Consider yourself reported to the P-38's are da uber committe. Member 1, AT.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
08-09-2005, 03:56 AM
S!


Slickun--you need to chill buddy-your line of questioning is starting to take "Spainish Inquisition" type tones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I have several P38 books along with AHT.

I have seen max speed ranges listed for the P38J from 414-430mph.

Bodies book list the official USAAF P38J-10-LO flight test speed of 421.5mph @ 25,800ft, dated December 2nd 1943.pg213 Ethell's book list the P38J max speed as 420mph @ 25,000ft pg.88
The P38G-H models had a top speed of 402mph at 25,000ft pg102 "P38 Lightning at War" Ethell. With mild forms of over-boosting a 5-10mph increase in speed was attainable for the P38J.

Making the jump from the P38J at 425-430mph to 440mph+ in the P38L sounds attainable with 250bhp additional horsepower depending upon the power settings.

I said that the speed of 414mph had been wrongly listed as the max speed for the P38L and was most likely it's military rated speed. I am not sure how you slipped the P38J in there.


As for delivery dates of P38L's, both Bodie & Ethell list 6/44 as shipment dates for P38L's to all theaters of operations. Ethell list in his book the the 9th AF started taking deliveries of P38L's in mid August of 44'pg.92. On page 117, P38L-1 of the 429th FS/474th FG is shown being serviced. As to the total amount of P38L's in the ETO, there would be a high water mark before the transition to P51's. After that almost all P38s were shipped to the PTO.

Like the 56th FG favored the P47 and remained with it to wars end, the 9th AF-474th FG requested that they stay with the P38J/L's instead of converting to P51 Mustangs. This was the only P38 group that remained in the ETO on VE Day. The P38 flow went from the 8th AF as it converted to Mustangs to the request of more P38's from the 9th AF. As the 9thAF converted to Mustangs, the P38's were shipped to the Pacific. So only 1 P38 FG remained in the ETO at wars end.


http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.html

"The Ninth Air Force was assigned a tactical role (in contrast to the strategic role of the Eighth Air Force), and retained its P-38J/L fighters a bit longer. Its first Lightning group was the 474th, which flew its first combat mission on April 15, 1944. It was soon joined by the 367th and 370th Fighter Groups. However, in March of 1945 these two latter groups converted to P-47Ds and P-51Ds respectively. By V-E day the 474th was the only Fighter Group still operating P-38s."


Great Interview of P38 Pilot Bob Carey, Colonel, United States Air Force
http://p-38online.com/carey.html

28 March 1996
Interviewer: Randal Johnson

Randall Johnson: This is an interview with Bob Carey, Colonel, United States Air Force Retired. We are making this recording for the records and files of the Eastern Washington State Historical Society and will start right in having a conversation with Bob Carey


RC: I was assigned to go overseas in the E.T.O. (European Theater of Operations) to a place in England called Goxhill. It was a P-38 Replacement Training Base. It was staffed with P-38 combat veterans as instructors. We did our first-high altitude formation flying. We flew out over the English Channel, but not quite to the combat zone. I forget how many hours we got, but I had the experience of my life while I was there just before I was re-assigned from Goxhill to the 474th Fighter Group. Tony LaVier, the famous Lockheed test pilot came over to Goxhill to demonstrate what a P-38 could do. His demonstration made my career as a fighter pilot. I already had tremendous faith in the Lockheed P-38, but after Tony put on his exhibition, I had full faith and confidence in that airplane. He put on something I€ll never again witness by any pilot. I close my eyes right now and see the whole routine. What was so spectacular about it was that I had heard along the way that the P-38 was a killer. I remember when I was working at McCord Field before we went to Alaska, a couple of P-38€s had smashed into the ground. Goxhill was a British base; and typical of British bases, it had tremendously large hangers. I don€t know whether you saw any of them, Randy, when you were in Europe or not, but they were really tremendous. They must be three hundred feet wide, and four or maybe five hundred feet long. Goxhill had two of them face to face, and a big ramp between them. Tony Lavier took off in his P-38 and started doing figure eights around those two hangers, right within the confines of those two hangers. While he was doing it, he was flying right at stall speed. He would pull the stick back and forth, and the airplane looked like it was €œducking€. He€d feather an engine and turn right into it. It was really something. It was just beautiful! That was telling me as a pilot that the airplane will do what the pilot wants it to do. You€ve got to be unafraid to do it. When he came in to do his final landing, an overcast had developed. Of course he hadn€t been flying over 1,000 feet all the time he was putting on that show, sometimes down to two or three hundred feet. He came in right between those hangers, pulling G€s all the way.

RJ: What a sight to watch!

RC: It was fabulous. When he came in to land, he approached at considerable speed, put his gear €œup€ at the top of the loop, and landed like it was an everyday event.

RJ: A tactical approach?

RC: Wow! A real tactical approach! Anyway, as a result of that demonstration; talk about falling in love with an airplane. I was a goner right there. After that, within the week, all the pilots who were at Goxhill were re-assigned to the 474th Fighter Group, or other P-38 or P47 groups. A bunch of us were sent to the 474th Fighter Group, which was down in West England at Warmwell. We departed Goxhill by train, and on arrival were assigned to one of three squadrons of the 474th.


RJ: Talking about airplanes, tell us a little about the enemy€s aircraft. The bombers and the various fighters you€re talking about, and the jet fighter they put in the air. Tell the story about that.


RC: I never worried the whole time I was over there after the Tony LaVier demonstration, about a 109 or a 190 out-turning us, and I certainly wasn€t worried about him out-gunning us, although I had very few occasions to ever tangle with them. Still, I had this profound confidence in the airplane. It got so that even at terrific altitudes, thirty-five thousand feet, even at that altitude, they were very, very maneuverable. In fact, I did acrobatics at thirty-five thousand, loops, rolls, and Immelmanns; just like when I was flying at low altitudes.


RJ: How much altitude would you lose in a loop?


RC: You wouldn€t lose any in a loop. You wouldn€t lose any in an Immelmann. You€d actually gain in an Immelmann, as you should. Oh, it was a remarkable airplane, it really was! I think we€ve pretty well covered the fire power of this airplane. We did mention its high altitude maneuverability; and I might comment that I never worried for one minute that if I had to tangle with the Luftwaffe, I was going to be at any disadvantage, because the airplane could just out perform them. It was totally the function of the pilot. Not putting any accolades on my piloting ability, after watching that demonstration by Tony LaVier, I knew I could make the airplane do it. When the Sergeant fixed that problem with the center wing stalling out because of that filler around the cockpit lifting up under €œG€s€; boy, you could darn near break your neck before the airplane would stall. It was really something!

RJ: Tell me about the big aerial dog fight you were involved in that turned out to be a real donny brook.


BC: That battle was on the 17th of July 1944 between Dreaux and Evreux in northwest France, just west of the Seine River. It was an armed recon mission to knock out any bridges on the Seine that were in the area. The French underground advised our controller that the Luftwaffe had scrambled 77 ME 109€s and FW 190€s to intercept us. Flying the €œTail End Charlie€ position in the trailing squadron in the group formation I was fortunate to spot the German fighters first as they dove out of the sun in attack. I called the €œBreak!€ and a mighty aerial battle began. It lasted 30 minutes. In the melee the 474th destroyed 27 enemy fighters, 19 probables, and 9 damaged. The group lost 3 P-38€s. In the fight I spotted a single P-38 on single engine heading out of the fight only to recognize the pilot was about to be bounced by a gaggle of 5 109€s. Flying above at the moment I immediately turned into the attacking Germans. I poured bullets into the leader and some slugs into the number 2 fighter. Apparently the attack drove off the Germans, as they got out of the immediate area in a hurry. The crippled P-38 left the fight and headed home. I received the DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) for that mission, as did many of the other 474th pilots that were in that great air battle.



RJ: Your missions then were mostly ground attacks?


RC: Mostly ground support, they were roughly two-hour missions. I think I got two hundred and fifty hours in combat all told.


RJ: One of your most significant ground attacks was hitting the German Headquarters in that big chateau near La Roche, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. Could you tell us about that?



RC: Yes. I lead the 430th Squadron on that mission. It was on 1 January 1945, shortly after the fog lifted that had grounded the 9th Air Force for so many days after the Battle of the Bulge began. The German Headquarters was in a very large chateau, complete with separate servant€s quarters. The squadron fighters were armed with two 165 gallon fuel tanks filled with napalm. The approach to the chateau was a perfect setting. Leading, I dove to the deck and came right up to the massive double front doors and slammed my two tanks crashing through those doors. As I pulled up I noticed no fire, but my element leader, Johnny Ackley slammed his two tanks of napalm right in the same door way, and his exploded. The chateau about €œwent in orbit€ The rest of the squadron held their tanks as we sought other targets of opportunity. Several days later I flew a test hop to examine the carnage. It was complete. Even burned out servant quarters behind the chateau, along with several military vehicles parked near by. The vehicles by the chateau proved the German command was in the chateau when we took it out. (Though we were never able to get an exact headcount of the individuals in the chateau it was estimated that this strike killed 1/3 to 2/3 of the German Army commanders involved in the Battle of the Bulge)



THE 474TH FIGHTER GROUP IN WORLD WAR II



Activated 1 August 1943 at Glendale, California, shipped out to the European Theater, 28 February 1944, the 474th arrived at Warmwell on the southern coast of England. It was assigned to the 9th Air Force, and flew the first combat mission on 25 April 1944. The 474th participated in heavy and medium bomber escort, fighter sweeps, direct support of ground troops, dive bombing, strafing, radar bombing, and night intrusion. Shortly after D-Day the 474th moved to A-11, Neuilly, France, one of the airfields constructed by the invading troops. The 474th moved with the invading troops through France and Belgium into Germany. The last World War II mission of the 474th was flown from Langensalza, Germany on 7 May, 1945 when the war in Europe was won. The group flew 12,954 sorties, dropping 3,920 tons of bombs, and expending 241,897 rounds of 50-caliber, and 36,656 rounds of 20mm ammunition while destroying 113 enemy aircraft in the air and another 90 on the ground. The 474th also destroyed 4,681 pieces of enemy equipment such as armored vehicles, truck, tanks, railroad cars, and gun emplacements, and damaged another 5,681 pieces.



Campaigns:

Air Offensive Europe
Normandy
Northern France
Rhineland
Ardennes
Central Europe



Awards

Distinguished Unit Citation

France, 23 August 1944

Belgian Fourragere

Cited in the Order of the Day,

Belgian Army:

6 June - 30 September 1944, and 16 December 1944 - 25 January 1945





http://www.usaaf.net/chron/index.htm

http://www.publicenquiry.co.uk/commands/fc9th.html

http://www.collectorsnet.com/milhist/9thaf/

___

Slickun
08-09-2005, 06:16 AM
Making the jump from the P38J at 425-430mph to 440mph+ in the P38L sounds attainable with 250bhp additional horsepower depending upon the power settings.

Lets use the baseline you gave us...421.5 mph. I'm going to assume that is at 3200 hp in the J, no "slight overboost". One can also assume that it is also the top speed, or nearly so, in the L at 3200 hp. Same weight, drag, etc as the L. If you use 425-430 as the top end on the J, overboosted a bit, there is no longer 250 hp to play with for the L calculations, as some of it is "used up" as the J increases map over 60".

We are asked to believe that an extra 250 hp adds 20 mph?

The top speed on military power we don't know for sure, but we can also assume it was the same as the J and L. Your numbers are 414 for the L. Pardon my misquote of you, btw. An added 350 hp gets it to 421.5. 46.5 hp per mph.

The next 250 puts it at 440+? C'mon, does not compute. That is around 13 hp per mph. The engines suddenly get over three times as efficient.

the only way a 440+ top speed for the L is plausible is:

1. We are talking about MORE than the 1725/70 inches map being pulled.

2. The J actually went a lot faster than anybody claims while running @ 3200 hp/60"map.

3. Even if we use 400 as the top end at 1425 hp/military on the J (AHT and Vaught), and 421.5 as top speed at 3200 hp from you and bolillo_loco's numbers, the added 19 mph required to exceede 440+ would be greater than the 250 available on the L, 1725/70" map. 16.3 hp/mph then 13.15 hp/mph. Even using most favorable speeds for your case I can find, disparate sources, they don't match.

If we're saying that US pilots went even beyond the 1725 hp, and pushed their birds way past even the unofficial limit, I can hardly argue. I have a feeling that 8th AF P-47 and Mustang pilots did it, pulling way over 72" map on their US Mustangs, past the "official" limit, for example. They had to know they were being held back compared to their Brit cousins running 82" map/25 lbs boost. Johnson claims he ran his P-47 at way high boosts. I'm with you on this. I hardly think the P-38 was the only bird being pushed past the limit.

But, claims of 440+ at 1725 hp don't add up.

Kahuna, thanks for the posts on the P-38 units. I always get something from you I wasn't aware of before.

As to the "inquisition", sorry if I came across too strong. Truly. These questions are vexing me. If someone shows me a logical sequence that makes 440+ look possible, I am all ears.

Slickun
08-09-2005, 06:21 AM
Kahuna wrote:


As for delivery dates of P38L's, both Bodie & Ethell list 6/44 as shipment dates for P38L's to all theaters of operations. Ethell list in his book the the 9th AF started taking deliveries of P38L's in mid August of 44'pg.92. On page 117, P38L-1 of the 429th FS/474th FG is shown being serviced. As to the total amount of P38L's in the ETO, there would be a high water mark before the transition to P51's. After that almost all P38s were shipped to the PTO.


Yeah, Baby! Thanks for taking the time to look that up for us. 9th AF got em in August. Any take on P-38L deliveries to the MTO? From your post it looks like they were being "shepherded" to the PTO, where it was the king.

geetarman
08-09-2005, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:

If we're saying that US pilots went even beyond the 1725 hp, and pushed their birds way past even the unofficial limit, I can hardly argue. I have a feeling that 8th AF P-47 and Mustang pilots did it, pulling way over 72" map on their US Mustangs, past the "official" limit, for example. They had to know they were being held back compared to their Brit cousins running 82" map/25 lbs boost. Johnson claims he ran his P-47 at way high boosts. I'm with you on this. I hardly think the P-38 was the only bird being pushed past the limit.

Good point!. A bit OT, but, I've read "Fighter Aces" by Raymond and Tolliver. In it, there are two to three references of 8th AF Mustang pilots pulling 72" of MP and over. Was this a common occurence? How would this impact the Mustang's performance at all alts. At least one of the passages in the book was a quote from the pilot directly.

Slickun
08-09-2005, 11:20 AM
In a nutshell:

The original P-51 Merlins ran at 67 " map. They had the -3 engine, slightly less powerful at some altitudes than the later -7. Roughly half the B/C Mustangs and all the D's had the more powerful -7. It had supercharger settings that kicked in at different altitudes, generally giving more power down low.

With the availability of 150 octane gas, the RAF and 8th AF raised their allowable map or boost levels.

The US planes were officially limited to 72", the Brits ran theirs at 82". 82 inches put the available HP at well over 2000 hp. The gains in climb, dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climb and top speed are significant. All below 20,000 feet. Above that there was no gain in hp. For example, a little polishing etc puts the Mustang III over 400 mph on the deck. One wonders how much it contributed to sustained turn, especially with 10 degrees of flaps.

Gains at 72" were not as pronounced, but the type goes significantly faster etc than the classic, published figures at 67" we are familiar with. 72" is about an additional 100 hp, give or take. Below 20,000 feet, that is. In the Mustang, boost increases only improve performance below 20,000 feet.

In the PTO, 145 octane was available to P-51D's on Iwo Jima. They reportedly operated at 82" map.

Now, how pilots went past "legal" limits is unknown to me. I think Mustang and P-47's had a little wire across the throttle groove. Like the P-38. To go from military to wep you shoved the throttle past it, broke the wire. I assume you just kept pushing the throttle beyond the place you were "allowed" to go.

I know the Brits tested Mustang Merlins at 28" boost, so 25" was not some sort of unpassable mechanical limit.

BigKahuna_GS
08-09-2005, 12:46 PM
S!


Slickun--In the PTO, 145 octane was available to P-51D's on Iwo Jima. They reportedly operated at 82" map.

It is clear that allied pilots (mainly RAF & US) over-boosted aircraft---that was the norm and not the exception. Irrp has great documentation on the RAF Mustangs--hence the RAAF Mustang Mark III we now have.

Like I posted before, the Brits left a very good paper trail on performance values, dates and squadrons that over-boosted. The US did not do so well with documentation and it is hard to find dates, times, and performance levels gained from over-boosting . Slickun--if you have documentation on the P51's operating at 82" MAP while on Iwo, you should forward that to Oleg.
The P51D and P47 need engine performance boosts--they seem doggy to me in this sim as opposed to real life.


__

faustnik
08-09-2005, 12:56 PM
Kahuna,

I agree that P-51Ds and P-47Ds at higher power settings would be a big boost for PF. I'd love to see them in the form of seperate a/c like the P-38 L Late. This gives the mission builder more flexibility than simply going with the overboost as the only version.

The only problem with this is that LW pilots "overboosted" their planes as well. Crumpp has already posted documentation of Fw190s being operated above their "official" boost levels. Where do we end it? As I see it, the LW needs it less right now, but, an argument for overboosted LW planes would be valid.

Oh, the Brits need a +25 Spit IXe badly as well! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-09-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
...Below 20,000 feet, that is. In the Mustang, boost increases only improve performance below 20,000 feet.




Hey Slickun

The increased boost allowed by 100/150 grade yielded speed increases well above 20,000 ft.

Due to RAM effect, the 72/75/81€ Hg MAP P-51€s enjoyed higher top speeds up to nearly 24,000 ft. P-51B-15-NA 42-3777 hit its top speed for 75€ Hg at 20,600 ft- more than a thousand feet above the V-1650-7€s Static rated altitude for 67€ Hg. 42-3777 didn€t drop back to normal 67€ Hg speeds until 23,800 ft.

LRRP

.

lrrp22
08-09-2005, 01:15 PM
Kahuna,

The evidence for PTO Mustangs flying at 80" Hg is only anecdotal at this point. The VII Fighter Command history refers to the use of 115/145 grade fuel beginning in March/April '45. Reference is made elsewhere to the use of 80" Hg MAP for take-off and combat. There is nothing to indicate that the use of 115/145 grade fuel extended beyond the three VII FC P-51D groups stationed on Iwo Jima.

I don't know if that's enough evidence to convince Oleg, although we know for certain that RAF Mustang IV's were also authorized to run at the same 80/81" Hg power level as the Iwo Jima D/K's.

LRRP




Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickun--In the PTO, 145 octane was available to P-51D's on Iwo Jima. They reportedly operated at 82" map.

It is clear that allied pilots (mainly RAF & US) over-boosted aircraft---that was the norm and not the exception. Irrp has great documentation on the RAF Mustangs--hence the RAAF Mustang Mark III we now have.

Like I posted before, the Brits left a very good paper trail on performance values, dates and squadrons that over-boosted. The US did not do so well with documentation and it is hard to find dates, times, and performance levels gained from over-boosting . Slickun--if you have documentation on the P51's operating at 82" MAP while on Iwo, you should forward that to Oleg.
The P51D and P47 need engine performance boosts--they seem doggy to me in this sim as opposed to real life.


__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

geetarman
08-09-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
In a nutshell:

The original P-51 Merlins ran at 67 " map. They had the -3 engine, slightly less powerful at some altitudes than the later -7. Roughly half the B/C Mustangs and all the D's had the more powerful -7. It had supercharger settings that kicked in at different altitudes, generally giving more power down low.

With the availability of 150 octane gas, the RAF and 8th AF raised their allowable map or boost levels.

The US planes were officially limited to 72", the Brits ran theirs at 82". 82 inches put the available HP at well over 2000 hp. The gains in climb, dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climb and top speed are significant. All below 20,000 feet. Above that there was no gain in hp. For example, a little polishing etc puts the Mustang III over 400 mph on the deck. One wonders how much it contributed to sustained turn, especially with 10 degrees of flaps.

Gains at 72" were not as pronounced, but the type goes significantly faster etc than the classic, published figures at 67" we are familiar with. 72" is about an additional 100 hp, give or take. Below 20,000 feet, that is. In the Mustang, boost increases only improve performance below 20,000 feet.

In the PTO, 145 octane was available to P-51D's on Iwo Jima. They reportedly operated at 82" map.

Now, how pilots went past "legal" limits is unknown to me. I think Mustang and P-47's had a little wire across the throttle groove. Like the P-38. To go from military to wep you shoved the throttle past it, broke the wire. I assume you just kept pushing the throttle beyond the place you were "allowed" to go.

I know the Brits tested Mustang Merlins at 28" boost, so 25" was not some sort of unpassable mechanical limit.

I don't believe our IL-2 P-51D's can pull 72". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Slickun
08-09-2005, 02:30 PM
The increased boost allowed by 100/150 grade yielded speed increases well above 20,000 ft.

Due to RAM effect, the 72/75/81€ Hg MAP P-51€s enjoyed higher top speeds up to nearly 24,000 ft. P-51B-15-NA 42-3777 hit its top speed for 75€ Hg at 20,600 ft- more than a thousand feet above the V-1650-7€s Static rated altitude for 67€ Hg. 42-3777 didn€t drop back to normal 67€ Hg speeds until 23,800 ft.


Learn something new everyday. The hp chart you were kind enough to forward to me showed the HP graph lines merging at 20,000 feet. And, we know what an assumption is.

Also, fellas, please excuse me for getting 82" and 81" mixed up. I should know better.

geetarman
08-10-2005, 11:36 AM
Found this on the web:


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html


Note the approved MP rating for the P-51B about midway down the page.

lrrp22
08-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by geetarman:
Found this on the web:


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html


Note the approved MP rating for the P-51B about midway down the page.

Yeah, I was aware of that site... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

.

wayno7777
08-10-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:
In a nutshell:

Now, how pilots went past "legal" limits is unknown to me. I think Mustang and P-47's had a little wire across the throttle groove. Like the P-38. To go from military to wep you shoved the throttle past it, broke the wire. I assume you just kept pushing the throttle beyond the place you were "allowed" to go.

A little bit of humor, just take the bolt out of the end of the throttle rod, loosen the turnbuckle nut and lengthen the rod about three turns, tighten the turnbuckle nut and replace the bolt, safety-wire the nut and wa la, 120% throttle....

geetarman
08-10-2005, 12:11 PM
What's remarkable is that the memo stipulates that WEP MP "have been ESTABLISHED by the Eighth Airforce for the different aircraft."

Seems pretty clear that by the Summer of 1944, 8th AF P-51B's were tuned and had the capacity to run to 72" without any restriction by the brass. P-38 late? We need the regular, garden-variety P-51B tuned better in the game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

249th_Harrier
08-10-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kahuna,

I agree that P-51Ds and P-47Ds at higher power settings would be a big boost for PF. I'd love to see them in the form of seperate a/c like the P-38 L Late. This gives the mission builder more flexibility than simply going with the overboost as the only version.

The only problem with this is that LW pilots "overboosted" their planes as well. Crumpp has already posted documentation of Fw190s being operated above their "official" boost levels. Where do we end it? As I see it, the LW needs it less right now, but, an argument for overboosted LW planes would be valid.

Oh, the Brits need a +25 Spit IXe badly as well! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

After the synthetic fuel and oil industries were made a target of the strategic bomber offensive, the availability of higher octane fuels to the GAF would be drastically limited. The capability to overboost would be limited by the fuels available. I don't know all the details, but I would imagine after June '44 this would come into play. In "To Win the Winter Sky" the author indicated that the difference in fuel quality, as well as quantity, was a major advantage to the Allies in Dec '44. He states that LW was forced to use 96 octane fuel with 40% aromatics, while the USAAF had 100 or higher octane fuels with less aromatics. It seems logical that part of this Allied advantage would be the ability to use higher boost values.

lrrp22
08-10-2005, 01:19 PM
geeterman,

After July '44, 72" Hg was the standard for all 8th AAF P-51B/C/D/K's based in the UK. The 352nd and 361st FG's reverted to 100/130 and 67" Hg when they deployed to the Continent from mid-December to early-February. A couple of groups may also have reverted to 100/130 grade fuel sometime during April of '45.

While the 8th AAF policy doesn't specify, some fo the early P-51B/C's with the V-1650-3 engine may not have been cleared for 72" Hg. It seems that the directive would have specified such a qualification, though.




Originally posted by geetarman:
What's remarkable is that the memo stipulates that WEP MP "have been ESTABLISHED by the Eighth Airforce for the different aircraft."

Seems pretty clear that by the Summer of 1944, 8th AF P-51B's were tuned and had the capacity to run to 72" without any restriction by the brass. P-38 late? We need the regular, garden-variety P-51B tuned better in the game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

geetarman
08-10-2005, 01:39 PM
Thanks for clarifying that for me. With the changes in the game after 4.01 and the really stiff competion it has generated, the US pilots really need any advantage they can get that would be considered accurate for the period.

Allowing the Mustangs to run at 72" would be a big help. Just fly a Mark III, and you'll see. I'd like to do it in a bubble-top with two more mg's.

lrrp22
08-10-2005, 01:50 PM
I have flown the Mustang III, it's kind of my baby. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, RAF Mustang IV's (P-51D/K's) were rated at the same boost level as the Mustang III- and they were all delivered with the K-14 site. Of course the same can be said for the 200 or so P-51D/K's on Iwo Jima... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif




Originally posted by geetarman:
Thanks for clarifying that for me. With the changes in the game after 4.01 and the really stiff competion it has generated, the US pilots really need any advantage they can get that would be considered accurate for the period.

Allowing the Mustangs to run at 72" would be a big help. Just fly a Mark III, and you'll see. I'd like to do it in a bubble-top with two more mg's.

USAF_pilot
08-11-2005, 01:16 AM
Garbage , hayatenoob , copperwhiner , Pipper who I think may have had a LW plane in their childhood scare them but ooops I forgot they are all still in their childhood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif - They want a game where only american planes exist with no opposition - result - fly FS2004 where you can design your own P38 which is by your "own" historical standards and leave us alone.Allywhiners - the new standard in whining
The cast - Gibbage , Aerial target , hayate_noob , copperpest

BigKahuna_GS
08-11-2005, 01:48 AM
S!



lrrp22 Posted Wed August 10 2005 12:50
I have flown the Mustang III, it's kind of my baby.
BTW, RAF Mustang IV's (P-51D/K's) were rated at the same boost level as the Mustang III- and they were all delivered with the K-14 site. Of course the same can be said for the 200 or so P-51D/K's on Iwo Jima...


What are we waiting for Irrp ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It sounds like 72" Map would be on the low side and 80" MAP on the high side for the P51D. Either way is a performance increase. It would be pretty sweet to have this performance increase in the bubble top with better visibility & 2 more .50cals.


The P47D with water injection goes from 57" MAP to 67" Map.

What kind of a performance increase do you think that would make ?

Johnson said he was pulling 72" MAP in his P47D-5.



__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Faustnik-The only problem with this is that LW pilots "overboosted" their planes as well. Crumpp has already posted documentation of Fw190s being operated above their "official" boost levels. Where do we end it? As I see it, the LW needs it less right now, but, an argument for overboosted LW planes would be valid.

Kettemunde-Now that we understand it is the exception, and not the rule, for an engine to be unable to operate at a "boosted" manifold pressure for a short period of time it is rather startling to me that the P47 required Water Injection on take off. The BMW801 ran for ten minutes without any anti-knock agent during testing for power and cylinder temperature comparison. Not claiming this was cleared for operational use, just that the motor could in fact run at that boost for a decent amount of time without an anti-knock agent. This is further evidenced by the fact pilots in the Geschwaders were "hot rodding" their FW190´s by tampering with the Kommandger¤t´s boost limiter. I made the wrong assumption that the R-2800 could run without it as well for short periods of time:

1730hp @ 142ata--->1870hp @ 165ata ----140hp increase for 10 minutes

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



Hya Faustnick, while crump had some informative charts he also made statements that contradicted Luftwaffe pilots and duration of WEP times.

Crump stated that MW50 & GM-1 could be run continuosly until the tank ran dry. Luftwaffe pilots said they only used Mw-50 for 2 minutes and 5 minutes was the max before burning up the engine. GM-1, which, being nitrous-oxide, is highly corrosive. I have seen all sorts vehicles run on nitrous --and it was always for short durations not continuous for 20-30 minutes as crump was suggesting. For extreme emergencies with your life on the line you do whatever is necassery to survive, but if you want to make it home on the engine that brought you--the luft pilots said very short durations for MW50 & GM-1.

The big difference that crump was not aknowledging was that allied aircraft were running over-boosted every day for every mission as routine operating procedure. For example Robert Johnson's P47 running at 72" Map. Crump did not think these boost levels were possible without using water injection. Johnson said he never used the water injection the plane was plenty fast without it. Because of the high octane Avgas the Allies had they could run at higher boost levels without water injection. Johnson said he operated his Jug like yhis for every mission without an abort and it ran trouble free. The RAF Mustangs & Spits operated this way also. This was an advantage.

"The BMW801 ran for ten minutes without any anti-knock agent" What the BMW801 was doing for 10 minutes without anti-knock the P&W R2800, Merlin & Allison were doing for hours every day, every mission at higher boost levels.

I wont go into the .83 mach number the RAF had for emergency dive limits in the Mustang vs the 190's lower mach value. That whole arguement crump had about this was absurd.



__

faustnik
08-11-2005, 02:01 AM
Kahanu,

When Crumpp said "until the tanks run dry" I think was in reference to NE (C3) cooling, not MW50 or GM1. There is a LW order stating that with the NE cooling system and 1.65ata boost could be run as long as needed. The official figures that I have seen for MW50 are a maximum of two ten minute periods with 5 minute cool down between use.

So, you want Crumpp to accept Allied overboosting but, you want to deny LW overboosting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Some of you guys definately know how to choose a side.

I can't see how mechanics of any side would not try to tinker with the engines.

BigKahuna_GS
08-11-2005, 02:56 AM
S!

Hya Faustnik,

Crump was was talking about Mw-50 and GM-1. He said the GM-1 could be run continously until the tank ran dry 20-30 minutes usage. I know what the official times for MW-50 state, im actual combat usage it was 1-2 minutes at a time with a max of 5 minutes with cool down periods in between.


Franz Stielger interview:

Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?
Oh yeah, we used it quite often.in combat you know.
How long did it last?
Uhh.you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you
know.if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.
It makes the engine worse?
It wrecks the motor.
And this was for the higher altitude?
Higher.yes.
And at what speed could you get up to?
Oh boy.I don't remember.450 or 500 km.
Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you
would burn out the engine.
How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?
That's okay.that uh.it didn't matter. You.but you never used it
for five minutes.a minute, minute and a half and that's it.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Faustnick--So, you want Crumpp to accept Allied overboosting but, you want to deny LW overboosting? Some of you guys definately know how to choose a side.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


I didnt deny anything. Where did that come from ?
If the LW over-boosted so be it. But the only thing I saw was for limited times and that is what crump posted. In order to run continous over-boosting without water injection you need a high octane fuel to prevent detonation.

High octane fuel, let alone any fuel in germany was in short supply late in the war. Conditions were so bad that there was no fuel to train new pilots. There was only fuel for combat and that supply was very limited with many planes grounded as there was no fuel available.



__

geetarman
08-11-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kahanu,

When Crumpp said "until the tanks run dry" I think was in reference to NE (C3) cooling, not MW50 or GM1. There is a LW order stating that with the NE cooling system and 1.65ata boost could be run as long as needed. The official figures that I have seen for MW50 are a maximum of two ten minute periods with 5 minute cool down between use.

So, you want Crumpp to accept Allied overboosting but, you want to deny LW overboosting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Some of you guys definately know how to choose a side.

I can't see how mechanics of any side would not try to tinker with the engines.

Faustnik - I understand you're consider, but, my point was that documentation exists that the 8th AF established 72" of MP in P-51B's and higher boost levels for other US fighters by the Summer of 1944. If true (and I have seen nothing yet to dispute this evidence), the US P-51B's in game cannot run at the established MP that they did in real life. Irrp has pointed out that all US Mustangs, with a few exceptions later in 1944, also ran at that boost level.

This evidence also indicates that we are beyond calling this "field mods or tinkering," but rather the officially sanctioned boost ratings for the US planes for the last eleven months of the war in Europe.

This evidence jibes completely with pilot accounts I've read where US Mustang pilot's were pulling 72" of MP over Germany and France in 1944.

Do I wish Oleg could take action on this - yes. Do I think he will - no. I think we can agree though, that US planes were set-up to be able to pull those levels in the ETO during 1944-1945. I won't even get into the boost used by Mustangs in the PTO (PF) as I haven't been able to find anything on it.

Cheers!

geetarman
08-11-2005, 10:03 AM
Soory - I meant "concern" in the first sentence.

Hoarmurath
08-11-2005, 10:45 AM
That's rather curious, as some documents, dated october 1944, still give the normal manifold pressures for these planes. And before you tell me that some official documents and manuals were not updated, among these documents are testing reports. Seem weird to have planes officially flying at overboosted levels, while still tested and compared using the standard boost levels.

Slickun
08-11-2005, 10:46 AM
72" gave the P-51 about 100 more HP than 67". Being lighter and much less draggy than the P-47's and P-38's, this added hp gave more of a performance boost to the Pony than 100 hp would to the T-Bolt or Lightning.

lrrp22
08-11-2005, 10:50 AM
geeterman,

Not all U.S. P-51's were using 72" Hg MAP- only the squadrons of the 8th AAF. The 9th and 15th AAF's in Europe were likely restricted to 67" Hg since they weren't alloctated 100/150 grade fuel. Granted, the 9th and 15th combined only fielded a maximum of 18-20 P-51 squadrons vs. the 8th's 42 squadrons.

In the Pacific, I don't believe that use of 115/145 grade fuel spread beyond the three groups of VII Fighter Command.


Originally posted by geetarman:
Irrp has pointed out that all US Mustangs, with a few exceptions later in 1944, also ran at that boost level.

lrrp22
08-11-2005, 11:02 AM
That's because the increased settings required the use of 100/150 or 115/145 grade fuel, which wasn't universally available.

In the USAAF, like other air forces, different commands had different resources and adopted different policies. A case in point is the VIII Fighter Command in England vs. the VII Fighter Command on Iwo Jima: during April of 1945, both commands had access to high grade fuel but the VIII FC limited its Mustangs to 72" Hg while the VII FC allowed 80-81" Hg. The RAF was also far less conservative than its ETO cousin- it allowed the 80-81" MAP setting for its Mustang III/IV's. Other than the boost settings allowed for 100/150 grade, the RAF and USAAF Mustangs were identical.




Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
That's rather curious, as some documents, dated october 1944, still give the normal manifold pressures for these planes. And before you tell me that some official documents and manuals were not updated, among these documents are testing reports. Seem weird to have planes officially flying at overboosted levels, while still tested and compared using the standard boost levels.

geetarman
08-11-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
That's rather curious, as some documents, dated october 1944, still give the normal manifold pressures for these planes. And before you tell me that some official documents and manuals were not updated, among these documents are testing reports. Seem weird to have planes officially flying at overboosted levels, while still tested and compared using the standard boost levels.

I agree, that is a bit curious. I'd like to see the sources you have, particularly the flight tests. As you eluded to, the manuals, etc. may not have been updated. I particularly like to see where and who conducted the flight tests.

geetarman
08-11-2005, 12:05 PM
Irrp - I was being a bit overbroad about all Mustangs using 72". In fact, the memo mentions P-51B's only and limited to the 8th AF. I broadened your comment about other 8th AF Mustang types using it. Oversight on my part.

Hoarmurath
08-11-2005, 12:47 PM
What, you don't have some of these documents? They have been quoted many times but people around here, Tagert seem very fond of them. Well, he is very fond of some of the pages.

Just have a look at the Vought report comparing the F-4U to various US planes. The characteristics of these planes are given, and there are some performance charts for them.

geetarman
08-11-2005, 03:04 PM
No I don't have them. I was making a request. No need to get snippity. You think all is this bunk? So be it. I don't care.

Hoarmurath
08-11-2005, 04:27 PM
Well, check your PM...

darkhorizon11
08-12-2005, 12:34 AM
So much P-38 hate, oh so sad, such a unique and beautiful airplane. There was nothing else really like quite it in the world when it first flew. Many other aircraft followed it afterwards. However I think it did its job well especially when considering the huge risk the USAAC took by adopting such an unorthodox fighter at the time.

Just my two cents.

faustnik
08-12-2005, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
So much P-38 hate, oh so sad, such a unique and beautiful airplane.


I agree. All of the version we have in PF are good but, I sure wouldn't label them "uber". Certainly, they nothing for people to hate.

VF-29_Sandman
08-12-2005, 05:47 AM
love the p-38..fly her right and she'll dance. fly her wrong, and she'll bite ya. the ship does have some vicious firepower if u use it correctly..maybe that's what makes it 'uber'. definately cant be the slightly undermodeled zoom climb rates.

GR142_Astro
08-12-2005, 10:50 AM
And firepower you can actually use since they tamed down the nose shake.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Agreed the P38 could use some boost in the zoom climb.

TAGERT.
08-12-2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
What, you don't have some of these documents? They have been quoted many times but people around here, Tagert seem very fond of them. Well, he is very fond of some of the pages. Actully it is you that is only fond of some of the pages.. or should I say the paragraphs? In that your the only one to quote things out of context. Need proof? Please ask! In that I can give you the link to exactally where you did just that.