P-38 Lightning

World War II American Military
#121

Ok then guys, we agree…

The P-39 was the best US fighter in Soviet use, & like-wise, the P-51 in British service…

The USAAF 8th AF had a clearly demonstrated preference [& effective use] for the P-51, too.

PTO allowed the best points of the P-38 to shine…

But Ndf…please…no…not video game simulations… B.S./fantasy data input = B.S./F-results…

It`d be better to consider Reno racing, since inherent P-38 limitations REALLY show up there…

Leccy, [& add P-82/F7-F] your points are worthy of consideration…

…did any prop twin offer anything except range/endurance as

advantages over single-engine contemporaries, performance-wise?

#122

Hello to all, personally the plane that could have changed a lot of things rest for me the Focke Wulf Ta152 if it had been produced in big quantity and especially to the date or it had to normally leave, since it was planned for the end of 1943, reassure yourselves I am not a German pro of the time, but merely when one looks objectively at the performances of this device to quoted of the allied devices, that it is a P51 or P38 or other doesn’t have photo, so much the device drawn by Kurt Tank was out norm for the time. With a speed passing the 780 km / h and a ceiling convenient of meadows of 15 000 meters, it was practically untouchable for all planes allied of the time, it’s a good thing it was not the case. Also to speculate on such or such device with “if”, we cannot redo history fortunately and cannot displease to any has certain the P38 will remain a plane important of World War II in spite of its shortcomings.

Fred

#123

Agreed…

But Ndf…please…no…not video game simulations… B.S./fantasy data input = B.S./F-results…

I don’t play any games and have no fantasy data. I’m referring to something I’ve read previously - that when flown by an expert pilot with lots of hours, the P-38L is one of the finest aircraft of WWII. Anything less and its limitations begin to surface…

It`d be better to consider Reno racing, since inherent P-38 limitations REALLY show up there…

How so?

Leccy, [& add P-82/F7-F] your points are worthy of consideration…

…did any prop twin offer anything except range/endurance as

advantages over single-engine contemporaries, performance-wise?

I can’t think of any, the Me110 was a virtual disaster as a daylight long range escort fighter. However, it seems twin engined designs excelled as nightfighters…

#124

It would seem two engines give one a better chance of getting home.

#125

From Zeno’s Warbirds. The 430th “Back Door Gang” in action in the Spring of 1945:

//youtu.be/e64O_6XXk-M

#126

I was unsure on the P-82/F7 as I saw the in service date as 1948? was beginning to think I had misremembered when I thought it was 1943/45 design.

#127

Apparently they saw combat in Korea and shot down North Korean Yaks. Their main mission was ultra long range (B-36) bomber escort missions that neither conventional P-51’s nor P-38’s could make…

#128

The F82 twin Mustang was beautiful is used well during the War of Korea, of the least right at the beginning before the hegemonic apparition of the jetplanes. Him to been used in the first place like plane of ground attack and thereafter as night hunter its radius of action allowed him to patrol all along the border. It is his that one owes the first aerial victory of this war.

#129

Ndf, the P-38s known inherent structural/aerodynamic weaknesses & poor low-level top speed
mean it could not match the competition at Reno…

There was however, recently at Chino - a good line-up of the still flying examples in the U.S…

#130

Do you have anything more on this? It seems one of the most popular racers was a P-38L. And if it had “inherent structural weaknesses,” never would have been used as a divebomber…

#131

From a 1944 USAAF P-38 evaluation…

“Caution must be used in aerobatics & diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds.
These airspeed limitations are due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure & are
definitely objectionable & hazardous from a combat standpoint.”

P-38s were tried in dive bombing like most WW2 fighters, but due to poor results/heavy losses were switched to trying
the medium bomber role, guided by the ‘droop snoot’ bomb sight equipped modified P-38, but results were again, poor.

ADI [water injection-power boosting] was used on many WW2 fighters, but not the P-38 - due to structural issues…

Reno race average lap speeds are in excess of the P-38s [low] limiting Vne of ~440mph…

Allison-powered aircraft of any type - don’t seem to feature in the fastest classes, anyhow though…

#132

Again, written prior to the P-38L (and late model J’s - the most numerous types) in which most of the problems were fixed. And the P-38 never “switched”, it did both until the end of the war largely in absence of large numbers of an enemy to fight in the air. Divebombing was largely eschewed in general due to the concentration of enemy flak making it hazardous for any aircraft and the P-38’s also carried rockets and almost as much of a bomb load as a B-25. So of course they were going to be used for area bombing…

The P-51 suffered “high loss rates” to ground fire in the Korean War due to its vulnerable cooling system. Does that make it a bad airplane?

BTW, where are you sourcing your Reno information from?

#133

Hello with all, my dear Nickdfresh, I of agreement with you on am made say that because a plane had many losses when it was in attack on the ground it is obligatorily a bad plane, it is a heresy to say that, because then all the allied planes were bad planes. The attack on the ground during the second world war was the most dreaded exercise of the combined pilots, so much the losses were high, German had raised Flak on such a level that for any plane it was each time a chance if that Ci did not return not perforated of any share or quite simply destroyed. Moreover the fact of having an engine on line cools by liquid made them still more vulnerable, only the radial engine apparatuses left the batch, therefore P47 was regarded as certainly the best plane combined for this type of exercise and to say that P38 was not very good in this exercise is somewhat without base, because him with the difference of P51 had two engines and could in the event of problems on one of, to leave itself there more easily, whereas the loss of liquid of cooling on P51 condemned it irremediably. When at the speed of P38 in low altitude, I do not know or you leave your sources J.A.W but they are false indeed that Ci had much better a speed and handiness that P51 at low altitude, P51 had lead soles as soon as it went down in lower part from the 9000 feet, this fact is very well-known German pilots and in particular those of Focke Wulf, which forced the pilots of P51 has to go down restoring their chances somewhat because Focke Wulf 190 did not like altitude, to give an example the two only allied planes shot down during the starting of the unloading of Normandy were two P51 by Oberst “Pips” Priller which engaged them at low altitude, proof if have some that P51 was not so extraordinary only that.
As regards the problem of piqué with P38, this problem was completely solved by the addition of brakes of automatic piqué on the versions J and L.
PS: In its book “the big circus” Pierre Closterman precisely speaks about the attack on the ground, which was absolutely dreaded by all the pilots at the point to prohibit of it the term him even, to name a ground attack mission it to off indicate it under the term of” Smell Flowers " referring to the cloud of the explosions of the shootings which resembled has a floor of flower so much this was numerous.
In a friendly way Fred

#134

Fred you will note that the primary Soviet tactical strike aircraft [IL-2] used an inline mill…
In Korea the P-51 loss rates were no worse than the radial engine USN Corsairs…

All P-51s were faster at low level than P-38s, & Merlin powered Mustangs were faster at all heights…

The P-38 loss rates were much worse than other USAAF fighters in the ETO, & in fact,
the P-51 was better at ground attack as well as air-to-air ratio-wise…

Indeed, Fred - even Chuck Yeager wrote of his angst re attacking strong flak defended airfields.
& the Germans suffered too, Bodenplatte aircraft flak losses were high…

The fundamental low Vne/structural issues of the P-38 were inherent & could not be ‘fixed’.

Ndf for Reno, try aafo.com

#135

Fred you will note that the primary Soviet tactical strike aircraft [IL-2] used an inline mill…
In Korea the P-51 loss rates were no worse than the radial engine USN Corsairs…
The P-38 loss rates were much worse than other USAAF fighters in the ETO, & in fact,
the P-51 was better at ground attack as well as air-to-air ratio-wise…

Indeed, Fred - even Chuck Yeager wrote of his angst re attacking strong flak defended airfields.

The fundamental low Vne/structural issues of the P-38 were inherent & could not be ‘fixed’.

Ndf for Reno, try aafo.com

#136

I’d have to see some source for that…

The P-38 loss rates were much worse than other USAAF fighters in the ETO, & in fact,
the P-51 was better at ground attack as well as air-to-air ratio-wise…

Complete bonk! The loss rate was 1.3% for P-38’s and 1.1% for Mustangs. How was that ‘much worse?’

That is besides the fact that the P-38 was deployed at the height of the Jagdwaffe’s fighting power whereas the P-51 was operation just as the Luftwaffe began its decline…

Indeed, Fred - even Chuck Yeager wrote of his angst re attacking strong flak defended airfields.

The fundamental low Vne/structural issues of the P-38 were inherent & could not be ‘fixed’.

Ndf for Reno, try aafo.com

What “structural issues?”

You can’t provide a actual link?

#137

www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
Ndf look up the P-38 reports… the P-38 was pretty much technical-advance done by '44…

& I suggest you check out ‘Big Week’ as a direct comparison of P-51 VS P-38 combat effectiveness…

The USAAF ETO stats like-wise confirm these findings…

#138

Ndf, here’s evidence that the USAAF had basically lost interest in pursuing P-38
performance improvements, & likely due to those structural issues…[airframe aero-compressibility/weight limits]

http://www.456fis.org/P-38K.htm

#139

More here Ndf, that presents the gist of the P-38s issues…
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p-38-lightning-vs-p-51-mustang-better-fighter-3867-14.html

#140

Not a particularly damning thread:

The P-38L had some advantages over a P-51B, some over a D, few over an H.

Of course the P-51 with a Merlin/Packard was chosen over the P-38 because it was a better overall choice for the situation, but that doesn’t mean the P-38 didn’t have its merits and pretty much mirrors what I’ve been saying. As a high altitude interceptor, nothing could touch it. But there wasn’t much of a need for high altitude interceptors in the ETO or MTO after 1943…