Um, the link says nothing about airframe “aero-compressibility” issues or weight limits and seems to contradict what are purely your speculations seemingly as they state the P-38K may have been the best overall fighter (piston engined) of WWII had it come to fruition. It only says the War Dept didn’t want to shut down the Lightning production line for a few weeks to retool for what seemed to be a ‘world beater’ in the P-38K. The truth is that the USAAF no longer needed a “world-beater” and just needed lots of very good airplanes, not a few less world-beaters.
The truth is that the P-51D was good enough, as was the excellent P-51H. But the USAAF/USAF lost interest in improving both as they were already thinking about combat jets by 1944…
Well, they had no problems in shutting down the P-51 production line for significant changes to A/B/D models…
& like-wise for P-47 D/M/N variants…
You did read about the fundamental Vne/dive limitations, vulnerability to faster German opposition
& the fact that an up-powered P-38 would be at risk
of exceeding its [low] Vne/compressibility limits… even in level flight at 30,000ft…
& the USAAF WERE still interested in the P-82, for what the new jets [& the P-38] could not do…
The production line prior to the “D” model wasn’t very big to begin with as the P-51/A-36 Apache were not considered prime fighters until after what amounted to fluke testing…
You did read about the fundamental Vne/dive limitations, vulnerability to faster German opposition
& the fact that an up-powered P-38 would be at risk
of exceeding its [low] Vne/compressibility limits… even in level flight at 30,000ft…
Why don’t you actually quote it rather than just making stuff up and completely mischaracterizing your links?
& the USAAF WERE still interested in the P-82, for what the new jets [& the P-38] could not do…
Because they needed an ultra-long range bomber escort for B-29’s and B-36s. Less than 300 P-82’s were made. The plane was mainly developed prior to the end of WWII and only saw limited service until 1953. The P-51 and P-47 “could not do” that either and were shown to be very unsatisfactory in their roles as ANG bomber interceptors. Did that make them bad aircraft in WWII?..
Ndf, the P/F-82 was plagued by political interference including peacetime budget cuts & forced engine changes, the actual aircraft, when built to N.A. original specs worked well…
The British always valued their ‘A’ -Mustangs & used them throughout the war, even requesting that they stay in production…& changes to B/C then to D & later H variant P-51s were fairly major…
P-47 ‘D’ models were significantly redesigned to accommodate the Typhoon-style bubble-top canopy, paddle-blade props &
ADI power-boosting, but the USAAF evidently reckoned the P-38 to be not worthy of these developments…
Check posts #23,#38,#45,#131, this thread, listings of the P-38s proven Vne limitations & none
are ‘made up’, so please do check the facts & post links to USAAF test results or ETO stats that prove them wrong…
I 'll be pleased to stand corrected, & grateful for new, validated, information…
So you’re criticizing the P-38 and the USAAF’s unwillingness to perfect it while citing the same reasons to defend the P-82?
The British always valued their ‘A’ -Mustangs & used them throughout the war, even requesting that they stay in production…& changes to B/C then to D & later H variant P-51s were fairly major…
They used the A’s for ground support and low level operation for which they were fine augmenting other fighters. And the changes to the P-38L model were also quite significant…
P-47 ‘D’ models were significantly redesigned to accommodate the Typhoon-style bubble-top canopy, paddle-blade props &
ADI power-boosting, but the USAAF evidently reckoned the P-38 to be not worthy of these developments…
The P-38 none of that as it already had a bubble canopy, two powerful engines making it one of the highest, fastest climbing interceptors (a feature no longer needed by '44), and counter rotating props. Incidentally, the inspiration for the bubble canopy was the Spitfire, not the Typhoon…
Check posts #23,#38,#45,#131, this thread, listings of the P-38s proven Vne limitations & none
are ‘made up’, so please do check the facts & post links to USAAF test results or ETO stats that prove them wrong…
I 'll be pleased to stand corrected, & grateful for new, validated, information…
Limitations of which variants of the aircraft and when? Facts and “links?” You’ve yet to explain your comments about vastly higher Lightening loss rates when statistically it was a wash with the P-51 Mustang (1.3%:1.1%). You can start by admitting you were wrong about that, despite that being repeatedly posted in this thread…
The Spits had the “Malcolm Hood” which increased pilot visibility, and it was initially adopted on the 47 and 51, hence my confusion.
The P-38 didn’t need one, since it already had excellent visibility…
If you have another look at the reference in post #138, you can check the USAAF stats for loss ratios…
Why don’t you just post them? Do you have a problem with the P-38 (1.3%) vs. the P-51 (1.1%) stat? Or are you just arguing using flawed, selectively culled data?
The USAAF knew the P-38 had reached its best-by-date, & did not pursue the ‘K’ model mods…
And where are you getting this from? Where you on the USAAF boards? Because the link you provided said the Air Forces simply didn’t want to risk a lapse in fighter production…
The ~440 mph Vne airspeed P-38 limitation did not apply to the P-82…
The limitation didn’t apply to an F-15 Eagle or a Mig-15 either. Also, equally irrelevant…
Ndf, the P-82 was, obviously, being considered by the USAAF in the same time frame…
as the P-38K … 1944 …& in that context…
…spurious references to 2nd gen Mach 2 fighters are ‘silly’…
& suggesting that MiG-15s or F-15s were duking it out with faster Vne German fighters…
The P-38 didn’t have very good visibility, partly due to the cockpit placement,& twin engine booms…
& partly due to all the canopy frames…
Do the F-15/16 have P-38-type frames in their canopies…
… or are they a blown frameless bubble like the Tempest had in `43?
The Spitfire was slower than the other ‘razor-back’ types to get a proper rear-view canopy…
Maybe 'cause they didn`t want a ‘lapse in production’ too… but still got one though…
Funny how the P-47 & P-51 managed… to get the new canopy…
…without too much of a ‘lapse in production’…
Feel free to post the official USAAF ETO fighter stats, maybe in a new thread…
They weren’t quite the same time frame as the P-38 first flew in 1937 and the P-82 was late war project that never saw any serious development until post-war, where it filled a small niche - but was increasingly useless against the advancing Red Air Forces. There were less than 300 produced and they saw little action. How serious of a comparision is that to an aircraft that’s production run went to nearly 10,000 units?
& suggesting that MiG-15s or F-15s were duking it out with faster Vne German fighters…
No. German fighters weren’t faster than the Mig-15 or the F-15…
The P-38 didn’t have very good visibility, partly due to the cockpit placement,& twin engine booms…
& partly due to all the canopy frames…
How would you know? Have you ever flown one or is this more of your baseless speculations?
Do the F-15/16 have P-38-type frames in their canopies…
… or are they a blown frameless bubble like the Tempest had in `43?
Um, both have frames in their canopies:
The F-16 has a single rear frame…
The Spitfire was slower than the other ‘razor-back’ types to get a proper rear-view canopy…
Maybe 'cause they didn`t want a ‘lapse in production’ too… but still got one though…
I dunno. Maybe because the Spits were encountering fewer and fewer German fighters and lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy ever retreating backward to defend its home skies?
Funny how the P-47 & P-51 managed… to get the new canopy…
…without too much of a ‘lapse in production’…
Feel free to post the official USAAF ETO fighter stats, maybe in a new thread…
That is funny. But the P-51’s got the canopy in conjunction with their role as a primary bomber escort. There was a big difference in stopping the lines for the USAAF’s primary fighter in 1943 to completely reconfigure the engine compartments and producing a British sourced engine in large numbers than stopping the lines to make minor changes to the frames of fighters for an air force with large numbers of existing fighters against waning enemies…
And I already have posted fighter stats. I asked you too…
Ndf, if you read the comprehensive thread on the ‘aircraft of ww2 forum’ link I listed…
… you will see the lame ETO P-38 figures…
German fighters were faster in dive/Vne than the P-38 [unlike most Japanese fighters],
putting it at a significant tactical disadvantage… & noted by the 8th AF…
No modern fighter has canopy frames running horizontally at eye-level like the P-38…
& I note that you posted a pic of the long [2 seater] canopy F-15 that has a slim vertical reinforcement loop…
The most produced USAAF fighter [& primary ETO fighter, 'til the P-51 took over] was the P-47,
which DID receive the improvements that the P-38K didn’t…
The development of the P-38 was not proceeded with, since with the P-82, a quantum improvement was
available to the USAAF for any role advantage the P-38 might still have had over the P-51…
The P-38 was quickly dropped from service post-war as a result…
The P-82 was prepared to intercept any Russian nuke capable air-space intruders in the late 40s-early 50s…
Look up RAF 2nd TAF, from Normandy to VE day, their Spitfires,Typhoons, Tempests & Mustangs were based on continental Europe & fought the air war- hard - right into Germany… check Canadian Spitfire pilot Richard ‘D1ck’ Audet for example…ace in a single sortie…
The German fighters, especially the FW190 didn’t have the high level performance of the P-38L, putting it at a “tactical disadvantage.”
And why don’t you go post at that forum then, or is that one of the other ones you’re apparently banned from?
No modern fighter has canopy frames running horizontally at eye-level like the P-38…
Oh Christ, you have no idea what you are talking about…
& I note that you posted a pic of the long [2 seater] canopy F-15 that has a slim vertical reinforcement loop…
Which is still a frame rail…
The most produced USAAF fighter [& primary ETO fighter, 'til the P-51 took over] was the P-47,
which DID receive the improvements that the P-38K didn’t…
What are you talking about? The P-38 received at least as many “improvements” from the original prototype to the P-38L…
The development of the P-38 was not proceeded with, since with the P-82, a quantum improvement was
available to the USAAF for any role advantage the P-38 might still have had over the P-51…
I’m still trying to figure out what the P-82 has to to with the P-38. I’m pretty sure you are too…
The P-38 was quickly dropped from service post-war as a result…
It served until 1949, about the same service length after the war of the P-47, and the 51/82 only made it to the end of Korea. Again, so what? P-38’s were used in third world air forces until the 1960’s as were P-51’s. But they had these things called “jets” that sort of took over fighter roles.
And it’s been stated more than once that the USAF should have kept the twin-engined P-38L in service for tactical air support as it bad better survivability than the P-51D, which often fell victim to its cooling system being hit by AAA…
The P-82 was prepared to intercept any Russian nuke capable air-space intruders in the late 40s-early 50s…
Right, which the P-51D/H nor the P-47 could do. But in your idiotic pedantic arguments, you fail to mention that among other things you fail at…
Look up RAF 2nd TAF, from Normandy to VE day, their Spitfires,Typhoons, Tempests & Mustangs were based on continental Europe & fought the air war- hard - right into Germany… check Canadian Spitfire pilot Richard ‘D1ck’ Audet for example…ace in a single sortie…
Who gives a shit? Does that mean that P-38 pilots sat back and drank margaritas?
Oh my… as George Takei would say… now there’s some ah, intemperance…
Ok then… “who gives a shit” well, you Ndf… stated that Spitfires weren’t in range… & they were…
Not until the much later models, dolt! If they were in range. Why didn’t the RAF use them as escorts? Or the USAAF? The US also chose the P-38 over the Spitfire. So, you must think the Spit is a poor plane then by you constant pedantic, solipsistic reasoning…
“Idiotic” hmmm… now, if I noted you as being obtuse to the point of idiocy, that would be fair… since
Yeah, arguing the minute is pretty idiotic…
you consistently miss the point that the USAAF in `44 had the P-82 specs on the table, the P-51 results
You’re right, because the point is completely stupid and irrelevant…
on the scoreboard & could bloody well see that the over-priced P-38 was past its best-by-date…
Of course it was expensive, and unnecessary. That didn’t mean it was a “bad” aircraft…
Open your eyes Ndf , & look at a P-38 canopy, there are FRAMES right across the pilot’s lateral eyeline…
None of the one piece blown bubble canopies then or now have that feature…
Oh please! How would you know? Of the issues with the 38, visibility was never one. And so?
Try your abusive profanity act on another forum yourself Ndf… & see if you get banned, unless its a bullshit
hypocrite forum like WW2 Aircraft & you are a so called Moderator there too…
Another cheap shot, or bullshit censoring coming now… for calling you out on home truths… I suppose?..
Well, the Spitfire makes an interesting point of comparison, since like the P-38 & 109, it was a `30s design
updated & adapted for exigencies of war…
Spitfires did fly over Berlin…& were also flown there by USAAF pilots… unarmed on PRU missions…
There is an interesting documentary about this, available on youtube & the US veteran clearly states the reasoning
for the preference in utilizing the Spitfire over the F-5 Lightning in the role…
The British bombed Berlin at night, & had no requirement for Spitfires to accompany them…
The USAAF were only able to hack it over Germany - when the P-51 was available, in numbers…
The ETO airwar was much tougher & more costly in terms of American aircrew lives, than the PTO…
I give credit to the 8th AF leadership for being adaptable & progressive in ensuring that the most
effective machines were pushed forward…& the results proved they’d got it right…
& Thanks, Ndf… for making me feel special… in rebooting me…
