PDA

View Full Version : P-38 Lightning



Clave
03-10-2011, 06:42 AM
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning entered service in 1941, it was a twin-engined heavy fighter with a long range which proved very effective in the Pacific Theatre.

The Lightning's design was unusual with twin tail-booms and a separate pod for the pilot, a feature found on very few aircraft at the time such as the Fokker G.I and the Fw-189, but the concept lived on in several British jet fighters of the 50s.

The Lightning was armed with 4 x 12.7mm machine guns, and 1 x 20mm cannon clustered in the nose, was also adapted for ground-attack with rockets and bombs being carried under the wings.

P-38J of the 27th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_27FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 55th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_55FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 67th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_67FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 71st Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_71FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 79th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_79FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 80th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_80FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 82nd Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_82FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 95th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_95FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 97th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_97FS_1.jpg

Clave
03-10-2011, 06:42 AM
P-38J of the 338th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_338FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 384th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_384FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 401st Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_401FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 428th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_428FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 429th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_429FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 431st Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_431FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 432nd Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_432FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 434th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_434FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 436th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_436FS_1.jpg

Clave
03-10-2011, 06:43 AM
P-38L of the Cuban Air Force 1947.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38L_Cuba_1.jpg

P-38L of the Honduran Air Force 1948.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38L_Honduras_1.jpg

P-38L of 4 Stormo Italian Air Force 1946.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38L_Italy_1.jpg

F-5G of the French Air Force 1945.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/F5G_France_1.jpg

F-5G of the French Air Force 1945.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/F5G_France_2.jpg

F-5G of the Taiwan (Chinese Nationalist) Air Force 1946.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/F5G_Taiwan_1.jpg

VonWeyer
03-10-2011, 07:35 AM
Thanx Clave...an aircraft that looked ahead of its time.

leccy
03-10-2011, 11:42 AM
The Lightning's design was unusual with twin tail-booms and a separate pod for the pilot, a feature found on very few aircraft at the time such as the Fokker G.I and the Fw-189, but the concept lived on in several British jet fighters of the 50s.

Into the 70's in fact with the Sea Vixen

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/hawker_seavixen.jpg
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/forum_hmshermes16.jpg
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/forum_hmshermes18.jpg
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/forum_hmshermes19.jpg
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2009-8/18/58306.jpg

Deaf Smith
03-10-2011, 09:07 PM
Might also want to look at the Convair Model 106 Skycoach.

Or the OV10A Bronco.

And it's understood that Harley Earl, an employee of General Motors, had a passion for fighter planes. After studying the Lockheed P-38 fighter, the design of which he deeply admired, he decided to design a car with “back wings” or fins, similar to the appearance of the plane’s back end. The Cadillac was his creation, the first car to show off these flamboyant rear tail fins to the public.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
03-10-2011, 09:08 PM
In fact.... there are alot of them!

AI RQ-7 Shadow
Abrams P-1 Explorer
AD Scout
Adam A500
Adam A700
ADI Condor
Albatros D.VI
Antonov A-40
Alenia Aeronautica Sky-Y
Armstechno NITI
BAE Systems Phoenix
BAE SkyEye
Bell XP-52
Blériot 125
Blohm & Voss BV 138
Burnelli CBY-3
Cessna O-2 Skymaster
Cessna Skymaster
Conroy Stolifter
Canaero Toucan
Convair Model 48 Charger
De Havilland Sea Vixen
De Havilland Vampire
De Havilland Venom
D cont. DRDO Nishant
Fairchild AC-119
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
Fairchild C-82 Packet
Fairchild XC-120 Packplane
Focke-Wulf Project VII
Fokker F.25
Fokker G.I
Galileo Falco
Galileo Mirach 26
Hughes D-2
Hydra Technologies Ehécatl
Hughes XF-11
I.S.T. XL-15 Tagak
IAI Eitan
IAI Heron
IAI Scout
IAI Searcher
Kalinin K-7
Lockheed P-38 Lightning
Lockheed XP-49
Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning
Mirsad-1
Nord Noratlas
North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco
N cont. Northrop F-15 Reporter
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
RTAF-5
RUAG Ranger
S-TEC Sentry
Saab 21
Saab 21R
Savoia-Marchetti heavy fighter prototypes
Scaled Composites Model 395
Scaled Composites Pond Racer
Scaled Composites Proteus
Scaled Composites White Knight
Shahbal
Sikorsky S-38
Sikorsky S-40
SIPA S.200 Minijet
Sukhoi Su-80
Schweizer RU-38 Twin Condor
Spectrum SA-550
Transavia PL-12 Airtruk
Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer
Vultee XP-54
Vultee XP-68 Tornado
Weymann 66
Yakovlev Yak-141

Clave
03-12-2011, 05:22 PM
Amazing list!

I remember seeing pictures of the Skymaster as a kid and being fascinated by the twin front-and-rear engines... :cool:

flyerhell
03-13-2011, 05:58 PM
Why was the plane originally built with 2 tail booms? Did it help the performance of the plane compared to other planes of the era with only 1 tail fin?

Deaf Smith
03-14-2011, 07:15 PM
The designer, Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson, was asked to make a twin engine fighter 'intercepter' that could hit 400 mph.

He toyed with several of basic designs.

http://p38assn.org/images/personnel/sketch.jpg

And he decided the twin boom, with the superturbo charger intercoolers in the wings themselves, would make it.

Deaf

Laconia
05-22-2012, 08:52 PM
I saw one a few years ago at an airport somewhere in Texas. What a great airplane and seeing one close up was truly a great experience.

muscogeemike
05-23-2012, 05:02 PM
I got to fly in one! In the mid ‘50’s as a kid I went up in a P-38 w/a second seat behind the pilot. It was owned by the father of a friend and another WWII vet, they had both flown the plane in the war. I only got the one trip as I up chucked in the plane.

Laconia
05-24-2012, 01:47 PM
I got to fly in one! In the mid ‘50’s as a kid I went up in a P-38 w/a second seat behind the pilot. It was owned by the father of a friend and another WWII vet, they had both flown the plane in the war. I only got the one trip as I up chucked in the plane.

I bet that went over well. Did the pilot fly like crazy, rolling around like he was in a dogfight?

muscogeemike
05-24-2012, 02:54 PM
I bet that went over well. Did the pilot fly like crazy, rolling around like he was in a dogfight?

He was doing some stunts - I really don't remember much beyond being so impressed with the plane. I did have enough sense to puke on the floor and it wasn't a lot, the pilot opened the windows and landed - he never said a word.

schweinehund
05-26-2012, 08:52 AM
Greetings,

Cute story!
And what happened to the plane? Is it maybe still under a pile of hay in a barn nowdays, or they sold it later?
Do you have any pictures of it?

muscogeemike
05-26-2012, 09:45 AM
You gotta remember this was almost 60 years ago - all I remember is that they did sell the plane shortly after - it just cost too much to maintain and fly and the family moved to another town and I lost contact with them. They had photos but I didn't have any.

schweinehund
05-26-2012, 11:04 AM
OK, thanks!
Do you remember the story of the vet airmen? Where they were serving during WWII, etc.?

muscogeemike
05-26-2012, 01:53 PM
The only one I remember was the father of a kid I grew up with (he is the one who moved). He flew P-38’s (F-5’s?) in the Pacific until he crash landed. He injured his ankle and when it healed he flew B-25’s. I’m thinking he flew photo/recon. I don’t remember any stories of air combat and I think he was a Cpt. I remember seeing a hand microphone, some medals and patches from that era. He also had a gun blister from a Catalina in his back yard, I have not idea why. I have no other details about either of the men - other than my friends father was a fire fighter, as was my dad, in S. CA.

There was a Lockheed subsidiary near where I grew up and I remember seeing P-38’s, F-80’s, Hudson’s and other Lockheed aircraft flying over my school often. This would have been during the early ‘50’s.

schweinehund
05-27-2012, 11:17 AM
Thanks for the sharing!

Laconia
05-28-2012, 09:41 AM
He was doing some stunts - I really don't remember much beyond being so impressed with the plane. I did have enough sense to puke on the floor and it wasn't a lot, the pilot opened the windows and landed - he never said a word.

Yeah, that's what I figured. I was an Avionics repairman in the USAF and the maintenance man of the month could get a ride in an F-4 Phantom. Every guy I talked to said they got one hell of a ride. As for me, I could only dream, though I did fly in the venerable C-130 right up in the cockpit. The view was great, we flew past that meteor crator in Arizona at about 10,000 ft.

J.A.W.
03-22-2013, 06:18 PM
The Lockheed P-38 may have been good for a twin-engined WW2 fighter, but was it really a waste of resources...since there was not much it could do - that the P-51 couldn't do better, for 1/2 the price?

Nickdfresh
03-22-2013, 07:57 PM
The Lockheed P-38 may have been good for a twin-engined WW2 fighter, but was it really a waste of resources...since there was not much it could do - that the P-51 couldn't do better, for 1/2 the price?

:rolleyes:

Sounds like the benefit of hindsight. Yes, if we could all go back in a time machine the ideal thing to do would be to take P-51's and put Merlin-sourced engines in them. But the P-51 was created by an American design team for the RAF after the war began, and the insertion of the Merlin engine for testing was something of a fluke, IIRC. I might also mention that versions of the P-51 also were severally limited with the cruder versions of the Allison engine, though always had excellent low level performance and were actually the USAAF's first real dive-bomber (the A-36 Apache)..

"Not much it could do?" JAW, you're making absurd statements here. What couldn't it do? It did everything as the primary photo recon aircraft, fighter-bomber, and air superiority fighter until the end of the war. Was it costly? Yes. Was it perfect? No. Was it effective? Yes! But the twin engined design made it pilot favorite for long ocean patrols and was the highest scoring USAAF fighter against Japan for that reason as it was envisioned as a long range patrol fighter over the seas bordering North America, not necessarily an air superiority fighter over Europe. You also seem to ignore that the teething problems of the earlier P-38's were worked out with improved cooling, turbochargers, pilot HVAC comfort, and power in its most numerous later versions. What's more, it was available and on the shelf at the beginning of the war for the USAAF, not much else was aside from the P-39 (which you love :) ) and the P-40 Warhawk with some Spitfires pawned from Britain...

Aside from all this, you seem to have a penchant for starting inflammatory threads seeking arguments along nationalistic lines rather than discussing history. It's getting a bit tiresome. Almost like you're re-fighting arguments from other boards?

J.A.W.
03-22-2013, 08:18 PM
Not much the P-38 could do BETTER than the P-51, 'cept maybe dig a bigger hole in the ground...& this thread is surely on a clear technical comparison level, since they were produced, procured & operated by the same nation & same AF..No politics to bring up..so how is it 'inflammatory'? & No need to personalise things at all...

J.A.W.
03-22-2013, 08:26 PM
The major problem with the P-38 was fundamental, & could not be 'worked out'- a poor high speed airframe that limited its performance envelope substantially...being speed limited to ~ 100mph less than the top European air war fighters, & while this didn't matter so much against the generally much slower Nippon opposition, it was a major reason that the P-38 was phased out of service quickly post-war,& even replaced as the USAAF twin engined fighter by the P-82 [twin] Mustang..

Nickdfresh
03-22-2013, 08:54 PM
The major problem with the P-38 was fundamental, & could not be 'worked out'- a poor high speed airframe that limited its performance envelope substantially...being speed limited to ~ 100mph less than the top European air war fighters, & while this didn't matter so much against the generally much slower Nippon opposition,

Wrong. Again you're referring to the first generation models up to the G/H variants. The P-38J/L rectified this, but the USAAF fighter units in Britain had already changed over to the P-51. You've probably also read that the P-38's overall loss to sortie ratio wasn't much greater than the P-51...


...it was a major reason that the P-38 was phased out of service quickly post-war,& even replaced as the USAAF twin engined fighter by the P-82 [twin] Mustang..

They were replaced because piston-engined aircraft were obsolete in the jet age, and the USAF already had numerous F-51's, and P-47's left over for USANG units stateside. There were no need for multiple types but the P-38L served until 1949 in the USAF, and into the 60's in Third World air forces...

J.A.W.
03-22-2013, 09:06 PM
Do feel free to check the primary sources...USAAF evaluations are frank about the P-38s insurmountable limitations including the lame V-max/vne, airframe modification did limit them them going out of control, but also limited the vne speed, as I stated...& the USAAF used the P-82 post-war since it had the long-range & performance that the early jets & P-38 didn't..

UN forces still utilized prop jobs in Korea, but not P-38s..

muscogeemike
03-22-2013, 09:33 PM
Not much the P-38 could do BETTER than the P-51, 'cept maybe dig a bigger hole in the ground...& this thread is surely on a clear technical comparison level, since they were produced, procured & operated by the same nation & same AF..No politics to bring up..so how is it 'inflammatory'? & No need to personalise things at all...

The P-38 was produced, procured & operated the same nation, true; but not the same AF, they were an ARMY aircraft. The US ARMY Air Force fought WWII (along with the Navy and Marines and our allies, of course), and it would be over 40 years before the US won another war (and then the AF was under direct command of the Army -again). And politics certainly did play into the mix, mostly pre Pearl Harbor. Money, production facilities, manpower resources were all greatly influenced by “Politics”, why was the USSR given so many P-39/63’s and few P-51’s and P-38’s (and no B-29’s and few other “long range” Allied Aircraft. There were certainly an abundance of B-17’s and B-24’s by late ‘44.

J.A.W.
03-22-2013, 09:50 PM
It was the USAAF 8th AF that used the P-51 so effectively...the B-17s & B-24s couldn't face the LW alone & live..
...but the Soviets had no need of those heavy bombers, they thought them wasteful! [at the time, although, later for the A-bomb they did copy seized/captured B-29s]

The Soviets didn`t want P-38s, but they did want P-51s - & were denied them, so maybe Larry Bell & GM did have some kind of political kick-back racket going down..& Lockheed learned it from them to use post-war ...who knows?

Nickdfresh
03-23-2013, 11:29 AM
Do feel free to check the primary sources...USAAF evaluations are frank about the P-38s insurmountable limitations including the lame V-max/vne, airframe modification did limit them them going out of control, but also limited the vne speed, as I stated...& the USAAF used the P-82 post-war since it had the long-range & performance that the early jets & P-38 didn't..

Those were dated criticisms prior to the arrival of the P-38J and L, which were largely never flown out of Britain by the USAAF in fighter squadrons, though they were used as dive-bombers and ground attack aircraft in Normandy. In late 1943, dive flaps were affixed addressing the problems. They did serve in Italy and flew into Germany-Austria until the end of the war...


UN forces still utilized prop jobs in Korea, but not P-38s..

The aircraft left USAF service in 1949, so they would have been gone for Korea. The USAF did indeed put many of its obsolete "sloppy seconds" in Korea while the newer stuff initially went to SAC. Perhaps it was a shame as the concentrated firepower and agility made the P-38J/L a fine tactical support aircraft. The F-51's cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire whereas the twin-boom Lightenings might have had greater survivability...

Nickdfresh
03-23-2013, 11:49 AM
It was the USAAF 8th AF that used the P-51 so effectively...the B-17s & B-24s couldn't face the LW alone & live..
...but the Soviets had no need of those heavy bombers, they thought them wasteful! [at the time, although, later for the A-bomb they did copy seized/captured B-29s]

The Soviets didn`t want P-38s, but they did want P-51s - & were denied them, so maybe Larry Bell & GM did have some kind of political kick-back racket going down..& Lockheed learned it from them to use post-war ...who knows?

The Soviets did have a few diesel-powered strategic bombers and mounted some largely symbolic raids on Germany before abandoning strategic bombing. Again, they concentrated on tactical air forces in direct support of armies and left the expensive bomber campaigns to the West. The Soviet fight was far more existential and they didn't have the time for esoteric, Italian bomber theorists - as like the Third Reich - their resources were limited.

Interestingly though, you seem to use Soviet decisions (such as not wanting the P-38) to validate your points regarding the supposed inferiority of the P-38 and the wastefulness of strategic bombing, then in turn, criticize the Soviets for their wasteful war of attrition and use of the P-39...

muscogeemike
03-23-2013, 02:43 PM
Those were dated criticisms prior to the arrival of the P-38J and L, which were largely never flown out of Britain by the USAAF in fighter squadrons, though they were used as dive-bombers and ground attack aircraft in Normandy. In late 1943, dive flaps were affixed addressing the problems. They did serve in Italy and flew into Germany-Austria until the end of the war...

The aircraft left USAF service in 1949, so they would have been gone for Korea. The USAF did indeed put many of its obsolete "sloppy seconds" in Korea while the newer stuff initially went to SAC. Perhaps it was a shame as the concentrated firepower and agility made the P-38J/L a fine tactical support aircraft. The F-51's cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire whereas the twin-boom Lightenings might have had greater survivability...

I think that every instance of a P-38 returning on one engine proves it was more survivable.

It wasn’t just Korea where the USAF didn’t have dedicated ground support aircraft, none of its aircraft in VN (with the exception of some Skyraiders they found somewhere) were CAS aircraft. The AF was forced by congress to develop the A-10 - an airplane they didn’t want and tried to get rid of quickly.

There was talk prior to the first Gulf War of the Army taking over the A-10’s but the AF couldn’t let that happen.

The last A-10 was delivered in 1984. How many A-10’s are still “on line”? The USAF has been slow to accept the world where their major role is to support ground operations.

Maybe modern weapons and aircraft can do CAS as well as the Thunderbolt II, us ground pounders have heard that from the AF before, but I don’t think it has been proven.

Nickdfresh
03-23-2013, 05:14 PM
I think that every instance of a P-38 returning on one engine proves it was more survivable.

It wasn’t just Korea where the USAF didn’t have dedicated ground support aircraft, none of its aircraft in VN (with the exception of some Skyraiders they found somewhere) were CAS aircraft. The AF was forced by congress to develop the A-10 - an airplane they didn’t want and tried to get rid of quickly.

There was talk prior to the first Gulf War of the Army taking over the A-10’s but the AF couldn’t let that happen.

The last A-10 was delivered in 1984. How many A-10’s are still “on line”? The USAF has been slow to accept the world where their major role is to support ground operations.

Maybe modern weapons and aircraft can do CAS as well as the Thunderbolt II, us ground pounders have heard that from the AF before, but I don’t think it has been proven.

That's why the U.S. Army became the biggest operator of aircraft in the world (helicopters), especially the AH-1 and AH-64 series...

A lot of Air Force pilots resented being sent to Korea piloting already outdated B-29's, B-26's, and the Mustang to a lessor extent. Though, I recall they had problems with North Koreans operating biplanes over forward air bases that even the F-51's were too fast and powerful to line them up and shoot down...

J.A.W.
03-23-2013, 07:22 PM
The Soviets felt they only needed heavy bombers for sea crossings , of which there were none between Moscow & Berlin.., they did ask the USAAF to bomb the Nazi warships doing shore bombardments, but the 8th AF didn`t get into that... the RAF sorted most of them out..
P-38s [& Sturmoviks] were liquid cooled, just like P-51s, & Robin Olds ace on P-38s, P-51s, [& had victories in F-4s in Vietnam,] said something along the lines of, 'I often came back from Germany in the P-38 on one engine, but I ALWAYS got the P-51 home on one engine"...

The point about the P-38 which I must reiterate is, having a Vmax/vne [diving speed capability/limit] up to 100mph lower than other air-superority fighters in service [even the P-39!] was seen as a significant failing.

muscogeemike
03-23-2013, 08:26 PM
That's why the U.S. Army became the biggest operator of aircraft in the world (helicopters), especially the AH-1 and AH-64 series...

A lot of Air Force pilots resented being sent to Korea piloting already outdated B-29's, B-26's, and the Mustang to a lessor extent. Though, I recall they had problems with North Koreans operating biplanes over forward air bases that even the F-51's were too fast and powerful to line them up and shoot down...

I have also read that when the Army found out how successful using Helicopters’s (at the start of the Korean War) were for evacuation of casualties it petitioned the AF to allow it to acquire more aircraft for that use - the AF refused.

The Army also ask the AF to “lend” it some choppers- again they refused.

How many men died due to interservice rivalry (actually petty power plays by bad leaders)?

Nickdfresh
03-24-2013, 09:43 AM
The Soviets felt they only needed heavy bombers for sea crossings , of which there were none between Moscow & Berlin.., they did ask the USAAF to bomb the Nazi warships doing shore bombardments, but the 8th AF didn`t get into that... the RAF sorted most of them out..
P-38s [& Sturmoviks] were liquid cooled, just like P-51s, & Robin Olds ace on P-38s, P-51s, [& had victories in F-4s in Vietnam,] said something along the lines of, 'I often came back from Germany in the P-38 on one engine, but I ALWAYS got the P-51 home on one engine"...

Olds were (again) referring to the models up until the P-38H. The chances are he never flew the P-38J or L series Lightning, which had vastly improved engine reliability due to upgrades to cooling, turbos, and the addition of hydraulic dive flaps (most did eventually) as most fighter units had converted to the P-51 by the time the J was available. They did see significant action with the P-38L operating in an air supremacy and ground attack role prior to D-Day. I'd like to hear those pilots opinions of the aircraft. That's like asking the opinion of a man who only flew the P-51A what he thought of Mustangs as a whole? not a very fair assessment, is it?...


The point about the P-38 which I must reiterate is, having a Vmax/vne [diving speed capability/limit] up to 100mph lower than other air-superority fighters in service [even the P-39!] was seen as a significant failing.

You're just repeating the same myth over and over again! The problems were rectified in the most numerous produced variants of the plane and the P-38L was actually more maneuverable than most versions of either the Me109 or FW190...

Nickdfresh
03-24-2013, 10:08 AM
I have also read that when the Army found out how successful using Helicopters’s (at the start of the Korean War) were for evacuation of casualties it petitioned the AF to allow it to acquire more aircraft for that use - the AF refused.

The Army also ask the AF to “lend” it some choppers- again they refused.

How many men died due to interservice rivalry (actually petty power plays by bad leaders)?


There were a lot of bizarre grudges between the services which were once unified. I believe the USAF raised hell over the Army's use of fixed wing turboprop planes such as the OV-1 needed for tactical recon and COIN operations in the 1960's. I think things have gotten a bit better recently and that airmen and even sailors were conduction patrol operations along with soldiers in Iraq. Never mind that the patrolling they were conducting was often stupid and tantamount to driving around waiting to get bombed...

Nickdfresh
03-24-2013, 10:14 AM
Merged with earlier discussion and pic thread on the P-38...

J.A.W.
03-25-2013, 04:04 AM
Nickdf just what is it about all the P-38s suffering from a lamely limited diving speed [vne/v-max] ...that is so difficult to grasp?

NO P-38s [of any sub-type A-to-K] could go near matching the dive speeds of P-47, P-51,Bf 109,Fw 190 or even a humble P-39....let alone a Typhoon or Tempest..

The late production P-38s were fitted with aero-spoilers which limited them from going out of control...but it was a speed limiter, & did not allow them to go faster...

To the USAAF in NWE, the high-diving-speed-capable German fighters meant the P-38 was in combat under a serious handicap...

Nickdfresh
03-25-2013, 07:33 AM
Nickdf just what is it about all the P-38s suffering from a lamely limited diving speed [vne/v-max] ...that is so difficult to grasp?

:lol:


NO P-38s [of any sub-type A-to-K] could go near matching the dive speeds of P-47, P-51,Bf 109,Fw 190 or even a humble P-39....let alone a Typhoon or Tempest..

The late production P-38s were fitted with aero-spoilers which limited them from going out of control...but it was a speed limiter, & did not allow them to go faster...

To the USAAF in NWE, the high-diving-speed-capable German fighters meant the P-38 was in combat under a serious handicap...

What you're fundamentally misunderstanding was not that the P-38 was incapable of diving, but that it suffered from air compressibility problems locking the controls in a steep, fast dive. The P-38 was actually too capable at diving, the problem was controlling it. It wasn't the only aircraft to have problems with this, the P-47 did as well. The instillation of the dive flaps allowed the P-38L Lightning to dive with the best of them. If you have comparable dive rates, please do share. The P-38 was used as a divebomber and tactical ground attack fighter-bomber and continued as an air superiority fighter from Italy...

J.A.W.
03-25-2013, 06:15 PM
Ah, now you are getting it , Nickdf, - çompressibility,- keep reading, 'cause that's the point : unlike the P-38 - P-51s, Spitfires, Tempests & the Bf 109 & Fw 190 weren't so limited in their dive vne/v-max [by compressibilty] & didn't need spoilers..
Compare P-38 effectiveness on win/loss ratios...they're not real good in the ETO..

Nickdfresh
03-26-2013, 01:33 AM
Ah, now you are getting it , Nickdf, - çompressibility,- keep reading, 'cause that's the point : unlike the P-38 - P-51s, Spitfires, Tempests & the Bf 109 & Fw 190 weren't so limited in their dive vne/v-max [by compressibilty] & didn't need spoilers..
Compare P-38 effectiveness on win/loss ratios...they're not real good in the ETO..

Perhaps you should read about the P-38J/L, the first aircraft to feature hydraulic dive flaps? Who cares what other aircraft "needed"? The "win loss ratios" are deceptive, because other aircraft came online and the Luftwaffe was buckling under a two front, perhaps a three front if you count strategic bombing, war. If we rated the aerial victory ratio of the P-38L, no doubt it would be quite high in the Lightning's favor...

J.A.W.
03-26-2013, 01:55 AM
Not compared to the P-51... & please do make the effort to find out what those "dive flaps" did... Ok I 'll reiterate [again...] they prevented the P-38J/L from going fast enough to lose control due to compressibilty...[& drill yet another big hole in the ground], but it also meant they were too sloooowww..to catch or evade a fast diving fighter...like the Lufwaffe operated..

The Luftwaffe maintained operations up until the surrender...

Nickdfresh
03-26-2013, 12:27 PM
Not compared to the P-51... & please do make the effort to find out what those "dive flaps" did... Ok I 'll reiterate [again...] they prevented the P-38J/L from going fast enough to lose control due to compressibilty...[& drill yet another big hole in the ground], but it also meant they were too sloooowww..to catch or evade a fast diving fighter...like the Lufwaffe operated..

The Luftwaffe maintained operations up until the surrender...

You're just nitpicking now. They were not "too slow" and the twin boom design gave them significant acceleration and allowed the USAAF pilots to shift tactics and perform vastly more acrobatic feats than previously ever dreamed and they could outmaneuver just about any Luftwaffe plane. As for operations, yes the Luftwaffe carried them out until the end of the war. But knowing a very old gentleman that was a P-51 pilot out of Italy towards the end, they routinely avoided fighter on fighter combat by 1945 as best they could...

J.A.W.
03-26-2013, 05:52 PM
Laying out the historical facts - viz, the USAAF 8th AF FGs replaced their P-38s with P-51s & RAF fighter command did not want them either..were they 'nitpicking' too?

Or was it that they wanted the best possible aircraft for the toughest WW2 air combat, & the P-38 just couldn't cut it...that seems plain enough.

Air fighting was tough in NWE to VE day... ie the Kiwi Tempest ace Warren 'Smokey' Schrader began his scoring run on 10 April `45 & got 9 +1 shared before the end of the month & being sent to run the Meteor jet fighter wing.
& Tempests downed 22 E/A in the 1st 3 days of May..

German pilots were not fazed by the P-38, they state that they never felt their fighters were inferior to them..& the results bear this out..

J.A.W.
03-26-2013, 09:06 PM
A few relevant remarks from the USAAF test branch re the P-38J will provide the gist..

"Caution must be used in aerobatics & diving manuevers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds.
These airspeeds have to be kept low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure & is definitely objectionable & hazardous from a combat viewpoint "

The P-38 earned the notoriety of being the US fighter that killed more of its own pilots than any other [including perhaps , the 2nd highest scoring USAAF ace in the PTO].

Nickdfresh
03-27-2013, 09:42 AM
Laying out the historical facts - viz, the USAAF 8th AF FGs replaced their P-38s with P-51s & RAF fighter command did not want them either..were they 'nitpicking' too?

Actually you're just repeating the same red herrings and selective facts in a prosecutorial case rather than seeking the truth, over and over, without understanding why - as we've explained this about 50 times now. The P-51 also replaced their P-47D's as well, a fighter you seem to be a bit more in love with. Does that mean the P-47 (which was also much more expensive than the Mustang) was a bad design? USAAF tactical fighter squadrons were also equipped with P-38L's and the P-38J/L's fought out of Italy until after the war and flew intensive and numerous sorties throughout the Overlord period in France. If the P-38 was so bad, why did they made nearly two-thirds as many as the U.S. did the P-51 series? Why was it the preferred fighter in the Pacific Theater with more kills than any other USAAF fighter aircraft? Are you going to post more wrong information like saying the Ki-43 "Oscar" was "obsolete" when in fact it was quite on par with the A6M Zero and (unlike German fighters) could outmaneuver the P-38's at low level?


Or was it that they wanted the best possible aircraft for the toughest WW2 air combat, & the P-38 just couldn't cut it...that seems plain enough.

You mean like in the PTO where it shot down 1,800 Japanese aircraft and relatively few Mustangs or Thunderbolts served?

The generals wanted an aircraft that worked well. The P-51 was serendipitously suited for long range bomber escorts and certainly was one of the best overall fighters of the war - but also had its weaknesses with the liquid cooling of the engine making it more vulnerable to fire, especially ground fire. Allison equipped early divebomber versions called the "Apache" had high loss rates due to this. I recall reading no such thing about the use of P-38L's as tactical fighters. We could actually make the argument that while the P-51 "replaced" the P-38 as a strategic bomber escort, the P-38 replaced the P-51 as a tactical fighter and was used in large numbers along with the P-47 in that role...


Air fighting was tough in NWE to VE day... ie the Kiwi Tempest ace Warren 'Smokey' Schrader began his scoring run on 10 April `45 & got 9 +1 shared before the end of the month & being sent to run the Meteor jet fighter wing.
& Tempests downed 22 E/A in the 1st 3 days of May..

That's called 'target practice,' as few of the German pilots were anything close to being trained combat pilots. Secondly, fighters were now operating directly over Luftwaffe aerodromes with little resistance. Bomber losses plummeted and there was virtually no threat of German tactical aircraft hitting Allied troops - as the Landser joke regarding planes in the sky went: if it's camouflage, it's British. If it's silver, it's American. If it's invisible, it's ours! There was little threat from German fighter bombers before Normandy actually...


German pilots were not fazed by the P-38, they state that they never felt their fighters were inferior to them..& the results bear this out..

Some German pilots were not "fazed" by much apparently, including P-51's and P-47's if you want to find their selective, cocky interviews. But most of those comments come from the time periods early in the war when the P-38 series was still having much teething pain, tactics were awful, and the Luftwaffe often outnumbered the Allies at various points and were actually able to conduct tactical airstrikes...

Nickdfresh
03-27-2013, 09:50 AM
A few relevant remarks from the USAAF test branch re the P-38J will provide the gist..

"Caution must be used in aerobatics & diving manuevers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds.
These airspeeds have to be kept low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure & is definitely objectionable & hazardous from a combat viewpoint "

The P-38 earned the notoriety of being the US fighter that killed more of its own pilots than any other [including perhaps , the 2nd highest scoring USAAF ace in the PTO].

Red herrings, red herrings, red herrings. Um, it's loss rate was almost identical to the P-51's overall, even though the P-38 was utilized more in the early years of America's entry into the war when the Luftwaffe was much stronger. Not all P-38J series of the Lightening had been equipped with hydraulic drive-flaps as some had to have field additions. The numerous of the Lightenings is the L series anyways...

J.A.W.
03-27-2013, 06:15 PM
The USAAF's own test facility findings are a 'red herring'? ...Yeah, right...

Perhaps the 8th AF decision to dump P-38s was..
[cue Monty Python's Holy Grail].... ' 'tis but a scratch, - merely a flesh wound'? ...

Seriously though, the facts stand...so check them..& post accordingly..

J.A.W.
03-28-2013, 02:15 AM
If you do some research, say - read Don Caldwell's JG 26 history, you may learn that by wars end, the Luftwaffe was still putting in meaningful effort, with their scarce fuel being reserved for those keen, capable, dutiful or fanatical to keep having a go...& an experte in a hot Fw 190D, BF 109K or Me 262, He 162 jet was still something to be reckoned with, the allies were losing their aircraft too, right to the end [not at a 7-1 loss margin like the Soviets though]..

The Jagdwaffe in fact sent hundreds of fighters to Normandy, but they were simply squelched by the overwhelming allied tactical airforces...& they were sorely missed elsewhere.. [where they were quite effective, on the Ostfront].

Attacking Luftwaffe airbases was a dangerous occupation for fighters, since they had formidable flak defenses, so much so that an archetypal cocky fighter pilot by the name of Chuck Yeager said about just such a mission...
..."I was usually confident & gung-ho, but I found myself praying for a mission abort. Man I had the shakes. I did not want to fly into the sky that day...we got an abort...I never wore a bigger grin..."

J.A.W.
03-28-2013, 04:11 AM
The 8th AF P-51s flew search & destroy tactical missions on the way back from bomber escort duties, & did not suffer the same casualty levels as P-38s, naturally - since the P-38 was a bigger,slower target, with twice as many juicy engines to hit..
...Incidentally the Germans did research the value of utilizing twin engined aircraft in tactical strike roles & found exactly that..

As for having the ability to 'get home' -on one engine, well that was at best, simply putting the inevitable crash site in a different location..

J.A.W.
03-28-2013, 08:35 PM
In fact, the last recorded Tempest loss to E/A in WW2 was F/O M.Austin [486 NZ Sqd] , shot down by an He 162 jet fighter..
From Air Enthusiast/48, P. 31;

"Although the Luftwaffe was restricted by the Allies overwhelming superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority. The Germans remained able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end."

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 01:27 AM
The USAAF's own test facility findings are a 'red herring'? ...Yeah, right...

This is just getting ignorant now, you're pointing to the wrong test results. It's like asking, "how did the test results go on the P-51A? Yes, terrible high level fighter..."

The T-34 tank was awful in 1941, because the losses of several hunbred to mechanical failure. Was the T-34 an awful tank in the end?


Perhaps the 8th AF decision to dump P-38s was..
[cue Monty Python's Holy Grail].... ' 'tis but a scratch, - merely a flesh wound'? ...

Oh, how horrible! They relegated the fighter from a high level bomber escort to a tactical fighter? So what?

Was the fact that it was so successful in the Pacific a "flesh wound?"


Seriously though, the facts stand...so check them..& post accordingly..

I have!

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 01:33 AM
If you do some research, say - read Don Caldwell's JG 26 history, you may learn that by wars end, the Luftwaffe was still putting in meaningful effort, with their scarce fuel being reserved for those keen, capable, dutiful or fanatical to keep having a go...& an experte in a hot Fw 190D, BF 109K or Me 262, He 162 jet was still something to be reckoned with, the allies were losing their aircraft too, right to the end [not at a 7-1 loss margin like the Soviets though]..

So? They could deploy all the "hot" aircraft they wanted. Many of their better pilots were dead and replaced by inexperience greenhorns. How "meaningful" was their effort on D-Day? What? two fighters strafed the beaches? The last major tactical effort during the Battle of the Bulge was at best a draw meaning the Luftwaffe suffered serious losses they could not replace whereas the USAAF and RAF losses suffered were a drop-in-the-bucket...


The Jagdwaffe in fact sent hundreds of fighters to Normandy, but they were simply squelched by the overwhelming allied tactical airforces...& they were sorely missed elsewhere.. [where they were quite effective, on the Ostfront].

Right! But they were defeated on the Ostfront as well...


Attacking Luftwaffe airbases was a dangerous occupation for fighters, since they had formidable flak defenses, so much so that an archetypal cocky fighter pilot by the name of Chuck Yeager said about just such a mission...
..."I was usually confident & gung-ho, but I found myself praying for a mission abort. Man I had the shakes. I did not want to fly into the sky that day...we got an abort...I never wore a bigger grin..."

There were losses suffered, but in the end the sending fighters down on the deck to destroy the Luftwaffe at the aerodromes was their death-knell - the final nail in the coffin...

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 01:51 AM
The 8th AF P-51s flew search & destroy tactical missions on the way back from bomber escort duties, & did not suffer the same casualty levels as P-38s, naturally - since the P-38 was a bigger,slower target, with twice as many juicy engines to hit..
...Incidentally the Germans did research the value of utilizing twin engined aircraft in tactical strike roles & found exactly that..

The P-51's were also fighting a vastly reduced Jagdwaffe that tried to avoid them in favor of the bombers...

I'm curious as to how the P-38L performed as an escort out of Italy...


As for having the ability to 'get home' -on one engine, well that was at best, simply putting the inevitable crash site in a different location..

The problems with the engines were solved by the J variant. If reliability was such an issue, then why did the Air Force use the Lightnings as their primary fighter against the Japanese for long patrols over the ocean? There were issues at high level such as pilot comfort, but again these issues were rectified after 1943...

J.A.W.
03-29-2013, 01:52 AM
T 34 was awful for those crew members needlessly maimed or killed due to it being deficient in basic survivability aspects - by the standards of the day, same as the Sherman...

Two LW sorties on D-Day? Been eating too many Hollywood red herrings? Do the research...

Defeated sure, but by weight of numbers, in a profligately wasteful manner...

Repeating errors does not make them correct, same for overt inability to recognise/acknowledge the published & officially verified technical/performance attributes of P-38s..

1944 saw the peak of Luftwaffe fighter sorties, & the P-38 was withdrawn from 8th AF service in the face of them..

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 01:55 AM
T 34 was awful for those crew members needlessly maimed or killed due to it being deficient in basic survivability aspects - by the standards of the day, same as the Sherman...[


1941? When it shocked the Germans and they had nothing to contend with it?


Two LW sorties on D-Day? Been eating too many Hollywood red herrings? Do the research...

Okay. How many sorties were there? Where was the mighty Luftwaffe in Normandy? It was "invisible."


Defeated sure, but by weight of numbers, in a profligately wasteful manner...

Repeating errors does not make them correct, same for overt inability to recognise/acknowledge the published & officially verified technical/performance attributes of P-38s..

Yes, you should really stop that...

J.A.W.
03-29-2013, 02:02 AM
88mm was nothing? That would `ve been news to the T 34 crews covered in burning Diesel...

I 'm up for a 'Pepsi Challenge' on the facts, I 'd be pleased to learn something new. So prove something...anything..go ahead..or prove me wrong..I `ll go with the facts..

Over 170 Jagdwaffe sorties alone on D-day[ according to D. Caldwell].
That would be 85+ times as many as you [red herring?] claimed & as for how many bomber missions...why dont you research the Allied D-day shoot down claims... before posting red herrings..

J.A.W.
03-29-2013, 02:27 AM
The 'invisible' Jagdwaffe put 900+ fighters up to strafe Allied airfields on 1st Jan `45, & here's some open, honest comments about it -from the RAF contingent..

Bob Spurdle CO 80 Sqd .. "A blanket of secrecy hid the true facts, but one thing was sure - we'd suffered a mighty blow...it was the greatest air disaster & a major defeat for us bought on by complacency & lack of foresight."

Pierre Closterman, Tempest pilot.. " Allied public opinion would have been dealt a staggering blow if it had known of it . The American censorship & the Press services, in a flat spin, tried to present this attack as a great Allied victory, by publishing peculiar figures. We pilots were still laughing about them 3 months later."

So don't believe the Hollywood 'red herring' hype..

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 11:02 AM
88mm was nothing? That would `ve been news to the T 34 crews covered in burning Diesel...

The 88mm was bad news for everyone. Why do you keep mentioning "burning diesel." Do you have any authoritative works that discuss the differences between diesel and gasoline powered WWII AFV's? Because this seems like rather a fetish of yours completely news to everyone else. I'd rather be in a diesel powered tank than a gas one if hit, although I do not think it really made much more of a difference than is the common wisdom. Ammunition stowage -often poor on Russian-designed tanks into modern day- is probably the biggest worry. Not what the engines were using...


I 'm up for a 'Pepsi Challenge' on the facts, I 'd be pleased to learn something new. So prove something...anything..go ahead..or prove me wrong..I `ll go with the facts..

Selective anecdotes are not authoritative "facts." They're opinions tainted with bias of the moment. What "facts" do you need, that America's two highest scoring aces flew the P-38? You know, the "facts" you callously dismiss with bizarre, nonfactual statements such as the "Oscar was obsolete." It wasn't. The fact is that the P-38 was not initially intended to be a "workhorse" aircraft in mass production, it was thought of as more of a high-end, temperamental sports car designed to control North American airspace along the coasts at high altitudes while other aircraft would be mass produced for specific missions IIRC. The plane had its issues, it wasn't meant to be a high level bomber escort; but it was an excellent fighter by the end of the war and brought lots of pilots back from long patrols over the Pacific and killed Yamamoto. Not that it really makes much difference, but I read that the P-38L is one of the best cyber-fighters in video game simulations...


Over 170 Jagdwaffe sorties alone on D-day[ according to D. Caldwell].
That would be 85+ times as many as you [red herring?] claimed & as for how many bomber missions...why dont you research the Allied D-day shoot down claims... before posting red herrings..

Which is barely a drop in the bucket, many of those were of course reconnaissance flights and I cannot recall ever reading about a German airstrike of note. Don't you think the beaches chocked full of troops and vehicles would have made some tempting daytime targets? All the ships? The Mulberries? I think all I've seen for Normandy were some night sorties that were basically ineffectual at best. The Luftwaffe was swept from the skies of France. According to the Holocaust Museum site (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005158), the Allies flew almost 14,000 sorties. Many were by Lightnings...

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 11:18 AM
The 'invisible' Jagdwaffe put 900+ fighters up to strafe Allied airfields on 1st Jan `45, & here's some open, honest comments about it -from the RAF contingent..

I know, I mentioned it to you - that was their tactical storm during the Bulge. They squandered a lot of resources better used for defense against the Soviets in that period and hastened the Reich's collapse in the East IMHO. It was a Pyrrhic draw at best, as they lost a lot of fighters and aircrews. The RAF and USAAF simply brought some more planes over from England...


Bob Spurdle CO 80 Sqd .. "A blanket of secrecy hid the true facts, but one thing was sure - we'd suffered a mighty blow...it was the greatest air disaster & a major defeat for us bought on by complacency & lack of foresight."

Pierre Closterman, Tempest pilot.. " Allied public opinion would have been dealt a staggering blow if it had known of it . The American censorship & the Press services, in a flat spin, tried to present this attack as a great Allied victory, by publishing peculiar figures. We pilots were still laughing about them 3 months later."

So don't believe the Hollywood 'red herring' hype..

Facts? It was regarded as a tactical failure of intelligence, much like the entire Bulge episode was. But Operation Bodenplatte was a failure in its goal to achieve air superiority and only decimated the Jadgwaffe more. And like the idiotic attacks in the Bulge, only weakened Germany by sapping resources they simply could not replace in men, panzers, transport, ammunition, and most of all --fuel.
According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unternehmen_Bodenplatte), sourced from Manrho & Pütz 2004, p. 10.:

The Luftwaffe had been far from absent over the front in December. It flew several thousand sorties over the theatre. Its encounters with the RAF and USAAF had meant heavy losses in matériel and pilots. On the eight days of operations, between 17 and 27 December 1944, 644 fighters were lost and 227 damaged. This resulted in 322 pilots killed, 23 captured and 133 wounded. On the three days of operations, 23–25 December, 363 fighters were destroyed. None of the Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commanders) expected any large-scale air operations by the end of the month.[14]

tankgeezer
03-29-2013, 11:25 AM
Quote from Nick: " I'd rather be in a diesel powered tank than a gas one if hit, although I do not think it really made much more of a difference than is the common wisdom. Ammunition stowage -often poor on Russian-designed tanks into modern day- is probably the biggest worry. Not what the engines were using..."
Having spent some years in tin boxes I have to agree with Nick that I would certainly choose a diesel powered vehicle over one using gasoline.Although in truth it really makes no practical difference at all. The true danger in any tank is one's munitions being hit. Wet stowage being very helpful but not invincible did little to comfort us "Tread heads". Soviet designed tanks had very poor munition stowage both in layout, and protection. This compounded their other glaring shortcomings. The T-72 in particular was the highest Soviet achievement in death trap designs. Frankly, it would be difficult to prevent a soviet tank from blowing up. I also agree on the burning diesel point, such types of terms, and their frequent use tends to detract from the rest of the post.

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 11:39 AM
Quote from Nick: " I'd rather be in a diesel powered tank than a gas one if hit, although I do not think it really made much more of a difference than is the common wisdom. Ammunition stowage -often poor on Russian-designed tanks into modern day- is probably the biggest worry. Not what the engines were using..."
Having spent some years in tin boxes I have to agree with Nick that I would certainly choose a diesel powered vehicle over one using gasoline.Although in truth it really makes no practical difference at all. The true danger in any tank is one's munitions being hit. Wet stowage being very helpful but not invincible did little to comfort us "Tread heads". Soviet designed tanks had very poor munition stowage both in layout, and protection. This compounded their other glaring shortcomings. The T-72 in particular was the highest Soviet achievement in death trap designs. Frankly, it would be difficult to prevent a soviet tank from blowing up. I also agree on the burning diesel point, such types of terms, and their frequent use tends to detract from the rest of the post.

This was one of their key problems in the Gulf War. The T-72's ringed ammo around the turret almost inexplicably making them crematoriums and furnaces.

I also sell diesel-powered equipment/vehicles for a living, so no one is going to badmouth my beloved diesel technologies :mrgreen: ...

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 11:43 AM
P-38J of the 338th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_338FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 384th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_384FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 401st Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_401FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 428th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_428FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 429th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_429FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 431st Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_431FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 432nd Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_432FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 434th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_434FS_1.jpg

P-38J of the 436th Fighter Squadron USAAF 1944.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/lockheed_p38/P38J_USA_436FS_1.jpg

Aside from being a very good "thoroughbred" fighter, it was also a bit curvy and seductively gorgeous. :) Some interesting links on the Lightening:

http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

http://www.chuckhawks.com/lightning_P38.htm

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 12:19 PM
From the first link above, one 8th AF pilot compares the P-38(L) to the P-51D. Capt Heiden writes:


...
"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."
...
"Aug 43, 8thAF has retrieved some Bomber Gps and has several original Spitfire/P-47 FGs. Two P-38 FGs, 1-P-51 FG that will not be operational till late Oct and have to workout tactics and maintenance problems, which all are severe. Highly inadequate supply of A/C."

"Nov. 43, P-38Hs and P-51Bs beginning ops, find themselves in a climate environment none had experienced before and a superior opponent with 10 times the numbers. Forced to take the bombers to, over and withdraw them. Lucky to get half of what they had to the target after aborts/early returns. Sometimes as few as four fighters made it to target under attack continuously going and coming. Five minutes of METO power was planned into the profile. Meaning that if you fought over five minutes you wouldn't make it home. Remember, you were being bounced continuously."

"Feb 11, 44, 357thFG goes on Ops (P-51). 4thFG converts to P-51s. 2-weeks later and other groups are converting by end of Feb. Now fighter groups don't have to go the whole to, over, and from target. The escort is now Penetration, Target, and Withdrawal, each leg is assigned to only one FG. and many operational problems are being resolved. Internal fuel on P-38s has been greatly increased with Wing and Leading edge tanks. P-47s are starting to get external fuel tanks."

"The last half of 43 brought horrendous losses, had forced German manufacturing underground and had forced Germany to go to synthetic oil. This had increased the cost of war exponentially to the Germans."

"Feb 44 we went back to Schwienfurt with acceptable loses. March 3rd the 20th & 55thFGs went to Berlin--Bombers were recalled. March, April, and May brought vicious battles, often with heavy loses. However, Germany were throwing their valuable flight instructors and 100hr students in to the battle. The Luftwaffe was at last starting to die."

"The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

tankgeezer
03-29-2013, 02:25 PM
My preference for a diesel powered tank is that they require less maintenance, and get better mileage than the gas variety. (plus they sound better, a nice throaty Vroom.) For us in the cold war days, anti-tank munitions were very good at firing any fuel type one might use. (except perhaps the unobtainium powered MBT-70 ) :) And they were certainly well capable of lighting up any munitions they ran across on the way through the neighborhood. This as you pointed out was a primary weakness in the T-72 which needed its 2 part munitions to be stored around the turret ring so that its much vaunted self loader could do any good at all. (it was disarmingly good at loading parts of anyone getting too close to it, but only so-so with actual ammo) The Turret Ring where Turret, and Hull meet, is the place gunners are trained to place their fire. Do it right, and you get a "Jack-in-the-Box" (turret of your target flies straight up.)

J.A.W.
03-29-2013, 04:41 PM
Capt Heiden appears to have his fill of the er.. 'crap'..since he lists some of the P-51s advantages & then contradicts himself.. I guess he didn't do many vne/compressiblity dives in them either..

Thanks Nick'df for posting some of those Jadgwaffe ops stats, it shows how 'invisible' they were [not]..& even if doomed by Hitlers's grandiose orders,-following them anyhow..

The Allies were embarrassed by the Ardennes offensive though, since they had convinced themselves that the Nazis were spent...& that complacency cost many needlessly lost lives..

Hitler spent his personal combat career in WW1 entirely on the Western front & that certainly affected his mindset, & as I posted earlier, the intensity of combat was tougher than in the East..

Nickdfresh
03-29-2013, 07:53 PM
Capt Heiden appears to have his fill of the er.. 'crap'..since he lists some of the P-51s advantages & then contradicts himself.. I guess he didn't do many vne/compressiblity dives in them either..

LOL Well, I guess you know more about them than the pilots who flew both versions. Specifically, where does he contradict himself? And if the P-38J had the diveflaps kit or was a late model production, then he probably did dive...


Thanks Nick'df for posting some of those Jadgwaffe ops stats, it shows how 'invisible' they were [not]..& even if doomed by Hitlers's grandiose orders,-following them anyhow..

"Invisible" isn't my term, it was coined by Heer troops! And to them, 170 sorties vs. 14,000 sorties IS invisible!


The Allies were embarrassed by the Ardennes offensive though, since they had convinced themselves that the Nazis were spent...& that complacency cost many needlessly lost lives..

Hitler spent his personal combat career in WW1 entirely on the Western front & that certainly affected his mindset, & as I posted earlier,

The Allies certainly were embarrassed. Hitler was making a desperate, completely irrational last gamble stall the Western Allies by cutting off their lines of supply and then turning East completely delusional of course...


...the intensity of combat was tougher than in the East..

Um, how do you measure the "intensity of combat?"

J.A.W.
03-29-2013, 09:55 PM
Well, I do know more about what vne means & what dive flaps do,- than you Nickdf, obviously..Maybe the Capt. has his reasons.."you can rightfully call it [the P-51] better, but it could not do anything better than the P-38...", well thats a contradiction & he's wrong too, the P-51 has a significantly better vne...say - he aint been on the Lockheed payroll - has he?..

By intensity...again, you gave a number for Allied op sorties flown on D-day...that is intensity..

The ratio of shoot downs achieved by the Jagdwaffe vs air combat losses...against the Soviet VVS compared to USAAF/RAF- throughout the war.., I posted those figures earlier..intensity..

I'd reckon the Allied soldiers being strafed by those jabos - [ those which did make it through] - were cursing their own flyboys for being ' ínvisible' too...

I'll bet those troops in the Ardennes would 've preferred that those Tigers were over on the Ostfront like-wise..

P-51 air-to-air combat success vs any other US fighter, & against the toughest opposition, & just like the P-38, those USN Hellcats wouldn't have gone so well over Germany as they did against Nippon airpower..
That is intensity..

J.A.W.
03-30-2013, 02:15 AM
Hub Zemke USAAF ace, flew all 3 NWE 8th AF fighters in combat [P-38, P-47, P-51]. He wrote of flying the P-38 , & he didn't like the "...steep diving restriction"...overall..rated it "...poorest of the 3..."

& In the MTO, the top scoring USAAF Fighter Group was the 31st FG,....& did it flying P-38s? ah, alas no...they flew Spitfires, transitioning to P-51s...

Nickdfresh
03-30-2013, 10:14 AM
Well, I do know more about what vne means & what dive flaps do,- than you Nickdf, obviously..Maybe the Capt. has his reasons.."you can rightfully call it [the P-51] better, but it could not do anything better than the P-38...", well thats a contradiction & he's wrong too, the P-51 has a significantly better vne...say - he aint been on the Lockheed payroll - has he?..

Um, it doesn't really seem that difficult. He basically says that the both aircraft were excellent and had their flaws and advantages but were relative equals performance-wise. But the P-51 series had the advantage of being cheaper and easier to learn to fly overall. Is it really that hard man?


By intensity...again, you gave a number for Allied op sorties flown on D-day...that is intensity..

The ratio of shoot downs achieved by the Jagdwaffe vs air combat losses...against the Soviet VVS compared to USAAF/RAF- throughout the war.., I posted those figures earlier..intensity..

Um, what to aerial victories have to do with "intensity?" It's about mission tempo, sorties, and attrition...


I'd reckon the Allied soldiers being strafed by those jabos - [ those which did make it through] - were cursing their own flyboys for being ' ínvisible' too...

I'll bet those troops in the Ardennes would 've preferred that those Tigers were over on the Ostfront like-wise..

All points that really have nothing to do with the topic of whether the P-38 was any good or not!


P-51 air-to-air combat success vs any other US fighter, & against the toughest opposition, & just like the P-38, those USN Hellcats wouldn't have gone so well over Germany as they did against Nippon airpower..
That is intensity..

No, not really. And why wouldn't they have? The best German pilots were dying by the end of 1943 in an "intense" two front war. It often didn't matter what they flew...

Nickdfresh
03-30-2013, 10:18 AM
Hub Zemke USAAF ace, flew all 3 NWE 8th AF fighters in combat [P-38, P-47, P-51]. He wrote of flying the P-38 , & he didn't like the "...steep diving restriction"...overall..rated it "...poorest of the 3..."

& In the MTO, the top scoring USAAF Fighter Group was the 31st FG,....& did it flying P-38s? ah, alas no...they flew Spitfires, transitioning to P-51s...

Well good for him. But if he switched out to a P-47, he never actually flew the improved, later versions of the P-38. And some units also flew P-38's and P-47's to the end of the war despite availability of the Mustang. The P-38 suffered higher loss rates in the Med because the experience with them came from the Pacific Theater where combat was at low and medium level, and the pilots assigned to the Lightnings were not properly trained for them initially. And the Spitfire couldn't go near Germany on escort missions, the P-38 did...

J.A.W.
03-30-2013, 05:13 PM
One [only] 8th AF FG, the 56th, retained P-47s [to trial the hi-po M version],but all P-38 units were dropped [even the late J & L were not wanted]..all the others flew P-51s..

'It didn't matter what they flew' - hardly.., The air-war, particularly over NWE - was a hot bed of high intensity technical development, where every performance edge was keenly sought..which is why the 8th AF dumped the also rans, inc P-38s, [& kept using Mosquitos for recon duties instead..]

& it did matter where they flew, since the Ostfront air-war was much less intense for the Jagdwaffe...P-39s instead of P-51s...

The RAF also chose Mustangs for long-range escort duties, not P-38s..

Nickdfresh
03-31-2013, 09:04 AM
One [only] 8th AF FG, the 56th, retained P-47s [to trial the hi-po M version],but all P-38 units were dropped [even the late J & L were not wanted]..all the others flew P-51s..

The 8th did, but other tactical units retained the and received upgraded P-38s. So what? What does that "prove". The Eighth also turned down the P-51A...


'It didn't matter what they flew' - hardly.., The air-war, particularly over NWE - was a hot bed of high intensity technical development, where every performance edge was keenly sought..which is why the 8th AF dumped the also rans, inc P-38s, [& kept using Mosquitos for recon duties instead..]

Who are you 'quoting'? Me? From where?

The air war was a hotbed of technical development everywhere and Luftwaffe pilots were "avoiding combat" with certain later types of Soviet fighters by the end of 1944. The P-38L wasn't an "also-ran". The Eighth, and the USAAF in general, were guilty of not properly preparing pilots and they were also asking the Lightening to perform a mission for which it had never been envisioned initially. The Mosquitos were used at pathfinders and had a larger payload for bombs and markers, IIRC. The Eighth didn't use Mustangs or 'Bolts for that either! The P-38 was harder to fly with more aeronautical nuances and required a good deal of pilot experience to get the most out of it.

Such categorical statements show you lack nuance and seem unable to grasp the big picture, and you're just trying to "prove" something or "win" an argument rather than learning something, which is getting very old. The Lightening served in the Pacific Theater admirably and as a reflection of that a lot of the experiences were used to train and equip units in the Mediterranean and European Theaters where the fighting generally took place at higher altitudes and what worked in the PTO didn't always work well on high endurance high level escort missions in the MTO and ETO.


& it did matter where they flew, since the Ostfront air-war was much less intense for the Jagdwaffe...P-39s instead of P-51s...

The RAF also chose Mustangs for long-range escort duties, not P-38s..

What is the meaning of the word "intense?" Who cares what the RAF chose? They had little experience with the P-38 other than stripped down models and had a lot of experience with the Mustangs...

J.A.W.
03-31-2013, 05:47 PM
Learn some things - thats the idea... The RAF & USAAF/USN were certainly interested in doing that, & had a policy of swapping examples of their latest fighters for evaluation purposes..

The RAF selected the aircraft that best met their needs, & kept using the Allison engined Mustangs throughout the war in NWE..as well as the later Merlin high-altitude capable versions.

They certainly evaluated the P-38 & P-47, but preferred their own aircraft [& the Mustang, of course] for use in NWE where the air-fighting was most technically advanced & intense...

...although they did use P-47s to replace their obsolescent Hurricanes in the strike role against the [ lesser opposition of the] Japanese..

As for the 'big picture', well, you could have a check of the stats.., that'll confirm the relative inadequacy of the P-38 vs its single-engined peers/opposition..

Nickdfresh
04-02-2013, 05:18 AM
Learn some things - thats the idea... The RAF & USAAF/USN were certainly interested in doing that, & had a policy of swapping examples of their latest fighters for evaluation purposes..

The RAF selected the aircraft that best met their needs, & kept using the Allison engined Mustangs throughout the war in NWE..as well as the later Merlin high-altitude capable versions.

The RAF didn't need new fighter types once the U.S. entered the war, they also didn't generally need long range bomber escorts for daytime missions...


They certainly evaluated the P-38 & P-47, but preferred their own aircraft [& the Mustang, of course] for use in NWE where the air-fighting was most technically advanced & intense...

...although they did use P-47s to replace their obsolescent Hurricanes in the strike role against the [ lesser opposition of the] Japanese..

As for the 'big picture', well, you could have a check of the stats.., that'll confirm the relative inadequacy of the P-38 vs its single-engined peers/opposition..

The RAF only evaluated the P-38 that was stripped of its turbocharger effectively removing any high altitude capability, IIRC. And check the PTO "stats," it was the number one killer of Japanese aircraft for the USAAF and the third ranking U.S. aircraft for for kills overall...

J.A.W.
04-02-2013, 04:44 PM
A couple of corrections...

1, The RAF evaluated the new variants of US fighters as they became available, & sent British aircraft to Wright Field in return [such as the Meteor jet]. The early Lightnings were rejected due to deletion of their turbos & stayed in the US for training... & the newer variants, although tested, were not selected for British service..

2, The RAF did use their Merlin Mustangs for long range escort, & they sent Tempests & Spitfire XIVs to the continent after the invasion to replace them in the air superiority role, to facilitate this.

J.A.W.
04-03-2013, 02:39 AM
Lightning ranked 1st for loss ratio [worst, that is..] for both air-air & ground attack of 8th AF US fighters..

& are you SURE the B 17 crews didn't claim more air-to-air victories than P-38?

Nickdfresh
04-03-2013, 07:49 AM
A couple of corrections...

1, The RAF evaluated the new variants of US fighters as they became available, & sent British aircraft to Wright Field in return [such as the Meteor jet]. The early Lightnings were rejected due to deletion of their turbos & stayed in the US for training... & the newer variants, although tested, were not selected for British service..

2, The RAF did use their Merlin Mustangs for long range escort, & they sent Tempests & Spitfire XIVs to the continent after the invasion to replace them in the air superiority role, to facilitate this.

Can you please provide some of the sources for your "Google-phu" argument'athon?

I could care less what the RAF used Mustangs for, they really used it in limited numbers anyways since they had domestic fighters like the Spitfire series and spent most of the major part of the war conducting night bomber missions. It's not even relevant to this argument. They also didn't need the P-38 for the reasons listed above, once the U.S. was in the war, they could concentrate on focusing the 'motor pool' to domestic types and simplify the supply chain..


Lightning ranked 1st for loss ratio [worst, that is..] for both air-air & ground attack of 8th AF US fighters..

& are you SURE the B 17 crews didn't claim more air-to-air victories than P-38?

And this has already been explained. The P-38's were fighting the Luftwaffe at its high-water mark in a mission it wasn't envisioned to fly and with teething problems along with inadequate pilot training and tactics --derived from successes in another theater where the fighting was a much lower levels. That's why they suffered greater losses. The Mustang and Thunderbolt also suffered higher losses in 1943-to-early-44' since the Luftwaffe's best pilots were still alive and flying in numbers. Overall, loss rates were comparable to the P-51 and the P-38 is the third highest scoring aircraft overall for the USAAF. It's also rated the "third best fighter" (Allied) even by many of its detractors...

J.A.W.
04-03-2013, 04:38 PM
The primary sources of Allied aircraft evaluation/comparisons are readily 'google-able', [see WW2 aircraft performance]- as are types/numbers/dates statistics of those used.

P-38 "rated 3rd best WW2 USAAF fighter" is fairly credible, but on published performance parameters -directly compared with contemporaries - it clearly is NOT the 3rd best Allied fighter...as the RAF, USN [& VVS] well knew..

Nickdfresh
04-03-2013, 07:37 PM
The primary sources of Allied aircraft evaluation/comparisons are readily 'google-able', [see WW2 aircraft performance]- as are types/numbers/dates statistics of those used.

P-38 "rated 3rd best WW2 USAAF fighter" is fairly credible, but on published performance parameters -directly compared with contemporaries - it clearly is NOT the 3rd best Allied fighter...as the RAF, USN [& VVS] well knew..


It doesn't really matter, though. The point was that it was a very good fighter that blossomed once the teething problems were worked out. The P-38 had weaknesses and its problems, but it was an effective American plane that has a bitter-sweet reputation that should be more on the sweet side...

J.A.W.
04-03-2013, 09:00 PM
According to the ideals of certain fantasists, perhaps..

..but in the cool light of reality,the P-38 must be judged as an expensive also-run against the top-flite competition [of either side]..

..& just like the P-39/63, [ & for good reasons,- as previously posted]..

..UNWANTED - by the top guns of the 8th USAAF/RAF.. for air-superiority combat against the toughest, most technically advanced WW2 opposition, in late-war NW Europe..

J.A.W.
04-04-2013, 04:50 AM
For example, F.G. stats for 8th AF 'Big Week'..

P-38s - 2 operational Fighter Groups = 10 e/a claimed.

P-47s - 11 operational Fighter Groups= 78 e/a claimed.

P-51s - 2 operational Fighter Groups = 64 e/a claimed.

J.A.W.
04-05-2013, 02:31 AM
& more from the official USAAF ETO stats:

P-38 is credited with 1,771 e/a destroyed

vs

P-38 losses 1,758..

What's the betting - those e/a claims were worth less than the lost Lightnings? ..Hmmm.. ..not too 'profitable'..

Nickdfresh
04-05-2013, 05:53 AM
According to the ideals of certain fantasists, perhaps..

..but in the cool light of reality,the P-38 must be judged as an expensive also-run against the top-flite competition [of either side]..

Why? It was reported to have been more maneuverable than either the Me109 or FW190 in later versions flown by veteran pilots. It also drastically outscored the Japanese..


..& just like the P-39/63, [ & for good reasons,- as previously posted]..

Um, check your facts, again. The P-39 was largely gone from the USAAF by 1943 whereas the P-38 flew in large numbers until the end of the war and almost to 1950. There were nearly 10,000 produced and the most numerous was the P-38L - the definitive edition...


..UNWANTED - by the top guns of the 8th USAAF/RAF.. for air-superiority combat against the toughest, most technically advanced WW2 opposition, in late-war NW Europe..

Unwanted by the 8th, but not the 370th. The Eighth was also never issued nor really evaluated the P-38L, which was almost a different aircraft and flew sorties over "late war Europe" top the very end. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about...

Nickdfresh
04-05-2013, 05:54 AM
For example, F.G. stats for 8th AF 'Big Week'..

P-38s - 2 operational Fighter Groups = 10 e/a claimed.

P-47s - 11 operational Fighter Groups= 78 e/a claimed.

P-51s - 2 operational Fighter Groups = 64 e/a claimed.

Cited from where?

fredl109
04-05-2013, 11:16 AM
Hello to all, I believe that our friend J.A.W wants to redo history also him, he is not less of them that of quoted it German, those called it here "Der Gabel schwantz Teufel" or "The Devil with forked tail" what revealed what they thought some well, and that of quoted it Pacific the two bigger American aces are on P38, then to pretend while leaving I don't know what sources that the one would be here less efficient that the P51 P47S or other and a heresy that doesn't hold of quite the account of the war facts and relief rather of a historic pseudo speculation that one too often finds unfortunately on internet.
Best Regards Fred

J.A.W.
04-05-2013, 05:19 PM
That "Forked tailed Devil" slogan has long been revealed as a propaganda myth, - pure P.R. hype Fred...whereas the 8th AF loss statistics are available for checking..

The unequivocal facts that contemporary testing produced, with performance evaluations/comparisons by USAAF Air Materiel Command & equivalent RAF sources/campaign histories are like-wise available..

& subjective application of the emotive terms 'pretend/heresy/pseudo-speculation/redo history' in a garbled post is quite, ah.. 'unfortunate', too..

The R. Freeman 8th AF histories are a fairly well researched start if you are interested though..

Nickdfresh
04-06-2013, 06:49 AM
That "Forked tailed Devil" slogan has long been revealed as a propaganda myth, - pure P.R. hype Fred...whereas the 8th AF loss statistics are available for checking..

The unequivocal facts that contemporary testing produced, with performance evaluations/comparisons by USAAF Air Materiel Command & equivalent RAF sources/campaign histories are like-wise available..

& subjective application of the emotive terms 'pretend/heresy/pseudo-speculation/redo history' in a garbled post is quite, ah.. 'unfortunate', too..

The R. Freeman 8th AF histories are a fairly well researched start if you are interested though..

It wasn't a "propaganda myth." It was in fact a German designation. Though some Luftwaffe pilots - especially the Experten - certainly learned its weakness and could exploit the inexperience of the early American pilots. Especially considering they often outnumbered P-38's up to five Jagdwaffe planes to one USAAF fighter often in encounters! The "fork tailed devil" was battling the Luftwaffe long before the USAAF and Commonwealth Air Forces had achieved air supremacy or even superiority. One of the "facts" that gets lost in your prosecutorial case against the Lightening...

J.A.W.
04-06-2013, 04:04 PM
Totally invented P.R. hype in fact, show one primary historical source [not some M. Caiden fantasy]- & the same applies to "whispering death" being the Nippon name for the F-4U...

Funny, I'd never heard that P-38s were the primary fighter in the Battle of Britain...when the Luftwaffe was for the 1st time - forced to conceed air superiority, & effectively lost the war for Hitler..

Same applies for Malta too...P-38s there when it mattered in the MTO? Don't think so...

Nickdfresh
04-07-2013, 09:52 AM
Totally invented P.R. hype in fact, show one primary historical source [not some M. Caiden fantasy]- & the same applies to "whispering death" being the Nippon name for the F-4U...

Sounds like an opinion...


Funny, I'd never heard that P-38s were the primary fighter in the Battle of Britain...when the Luftwaffe was for the 1st time - forced to conceed air superiority, & effectively lost the war for Hitler..

Same applies for Malta too...P-38s there when it mattered in the MTO? Don't think so...

I've never heard of the P-38 in the air war over North Vietnam either. Proof it was horrible!

fredl109
04-07-2013, 05:48 PM
Hello to all, I don't know of or you hold your information but for what is the P38, she was named "The devil to forked tail" by the pilots is this is mentioned in several biographic works. It is some in the same way for the F4U, I don't know really why and that puts back it in question. When in the P38, she was used in ETO during World War II, but not after, the French aviation never put in service of the P38 to the vietnam and during the war of Korea the one was not used here also. I would like to see the sources that you use to affirm this, as I already told it higher the sources solely based on internet are not guaranties seen the manipulations that one can find there.
Best regards Fred

J.A.W.
04-14-2013, 06:17 PM
Nickpf, there were in fact US WW2-era twin-engined piston planes used in combat over Vietnam...but not P-38s, [B-26s -formerly- A-26s]..since P-38s weren't considered to be 'keepers' by the USAF..

& IF the Luftwaffe had gained air-superiority over Britain or Malta, there would not have been any bases for P-38s to operate from in the ETO/MTO, when the U.S. had joined the fighting..

Fred, I have NEVER seen an original WW2 German source ['Signal' magazine for instance] that gives the 'forked-tailed-devil' moniker/legend any basis in reality..

Nickdfresh
04-15-2013, 05:12 PM
Nickpf, there were in fact US WW2-era twin-engined piston planes used in combat over Vietnam...but not P-38s, [B-26s -formerly- A-26s]..since P-38s weren't considered to be 'keepers' by the USAF..

When? The B-26 was used over Korea where is was immensely unpopular amongst crews as a piston-engined, obsolete bomber while SAC was getting the newer, frontline stuff. I doubt the Marauder saw anything more than very limited, early duty in the war...

And so what? The P-38 was a fighter! They had Phantoms, F-105's, F-5's, F-101's, F-102's, etc., in Vietnam. Not piston engined fighters! Another silly comparison with no bearing on anything. They didn't have Fw190's in Vietnam! I guess they sucked! as a fighter because the North Vietnamese Air Force didn't use them! (such red herring comparisons are getting beyond ridiculous at this point)...


& IF the Luftwaffe had gained air-superiority over Britain or Malta, there would not have been any bases for P-38s to operate from in the ETO/MTO, when the U.S. had joined the fighting..

Um, England? North Africa?


Fred, I have NEVER seen an original WW2 German source ['Signal' magazine for instance] that gives the 'forked-tailed-devil' moniker/legend any basis in reality..

So? There are plenty of English language sources. I think there are one or more books precisely named that. Maybe you should write a book that disputes this?

J.A.W.
04-15-2013, 05:52 PM
Um...if the Luftwaffe had neutralised the RAF over Britain or Malta/Africa, then there would be no bases for the U.S. forces to ultilize there..

The B-26 operated in the COIN role in Vietnam, it was not the Martin Marauder, but the A-26 Douglas Invader, re-designated..the point being.. that just like the Douglas Skyraider, even if the aircraft was piston engined - yet deemed effective in the attack role, it was kept in service use...& the P-38 was not..since in WW2 it had been shown to be too costly/vulnerable/ineffective in the attack role..

English language sources that reference/verify the original German usage of the F-T-D?
I doubt it...do feel free to show proof if you have it..

Nickdfresh
04-15-2013, 08:03 PM
Um...if the Luftwaffe had neutralised the RAF over Britain or Malta/Africa, then there would be no bases for the U.S. forces to ultilize there..

So? What do hypotheticals and "what-ifs" have to do with anything?


The B-26 operated in the COIN role in Vietnam, it was not the Martin Marauder, but the A-26 Douglas Invader, re-designated..the point being.. that just like the Douglas Skyraider, even if the aircraft was piston engined - yet deemed effective in the attack role, it was kept in service use...& the P-38 was not..since in WW2 it had been shown to be too costly/vulnerable/ineffective in the attack role..

Again, you're being ignorant either intentionally or for the purposes of trolling. There were NO piston engined fighters from WWII in service during Vietnam. And where was it shown the P-38 was costly/vulnerable/blah blah blah in WWII when it was utilized as a divebomber and tactical support fighter in the form of the P-38L during the Normandy Invasion?

*BTW, the B-26 Invaders were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1964, a year prior to the main phase of American involvement in the Vietnamese War...


English language sources that reference/verify the original German usage of the F-T-D?
I doubt it...do feel free to show proof if you have it..

Why don't YOU read them? You're the one denying the sources?

Nickdfresh
04-15-2013, 08:05 PM
Locking this thread and issuing formal warning for argument spamming and trolling...

hgilley
05-09-2013, 10:34 AM
Generally accepted historical facts:

1. Airwar was virtually over by May 1944, as evidenced by the lack of Luftwaffe opposition to the D-Day invasion, lack of opposition to bombing raids, and the virtual slaughter of Japanese planes at the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" in June 1944. Certainly sporadic opposition continued by Axis forces who hoarded their scarce resources (planes, pilots, fuel) for last ditch missions.

2. P-51 was chosen over the P-38 by Gen. Doolittle of the 8th AF primarily due to maintenance, a single was easier to maintain than a twin. He wanted to standardize on one type for ease of maintenance, very logical.

3. Other main disadvantage of the P-38 was training time, took about twice as long for a new pilot to become an expert in the P-38 as it took for any single engine fighter.

4. The dive flap did not restrict the diving speed of the P-38, it redirected the airflow so that control surfaces were more responsive. Compressibility prohibited control of the P-38 at speeds approaching Mach 1 due to the airflow over the tail surfaces being disturbed. Other planes did encounter this phenomenon, especially those capable of high altitudes where the speed of sound was lower.

5. Comparison of later fighter types (P-51, Hellcat) to earlier types (P-38, P-39, Wildcat) is difficult because the opposing forces (Luftwaffe, Japanese) were much stronger against the earlier types, in terms of pilot quality and numbers of aircraft. Certainly the P-51BCD and Hellcat were superior to the P-39 and Wildcat, but the earlier planes were always outnumbered and the enemy pilots were of much higher quality. The P-39 and Wildcat certainly contributed to the attrition of enemy planes and pilots.

J.A.W.
05-14-2013, 01:38 AM
H.G... You cannot be serious..

The air-war over NW Europe in the final year of the war was super-intense..

So much so that the USAAF had to relegate its dedicated high-altitude turbo-charged P-38J [see USAAF technical report in post #45 this thread] & P-47D long-range interceptors to the tactical support role [& indeed the P-38 was even tried in the medium bomber role - due to excessive casualty rates] in favour of the P-51..

& how many P-38s obtained jet claim/credits? FYI, RAF Tempests were credited [via gun camera film] with every type of Nazi jet flying, inc' He 162..

& P-38s were Vne limited to ~100mph less than say, a Tempest [540mph IAS Vne @ 10,000ft] , which was a grave disadvantage compared to 109/190s,
- in their typical attack, then split-S/dive away tactics.

Whereas, P-38s in the PTO did not have to contend with such high air-speed capable opponents..

fredl109
05-14-2013, 04:21 AM
Hello to all, the again JAW mister you make mistakes, Hggiley is right, if the stiff American were important, it is solely of has it an intense activity of attack to soil. The German had lost all their big pilots practically and the schools only trained rare pupils, it was mainly of the to the lack cruel of fuel, reread a little if ever you didn't read it, the book of Adolf Galland "The first and the last", he explains this state of fact very well. When to the P38 he/it gave all satisfaction until doesn't have the end of the war of it displeases you, she was a great plane of attack to soil, it was of the by the fact that his arming mainly concentrate in the nose, allowed him an absolutely negligible fire power besides the last types were equipped also of rockets. Those here although not very precise were less dangerous of it against objectives to soil.
To come back on the topic of the German aerial activity in the beginning of 1945, the only big offensive and that was the latest was the one of January 1st, 1945 and that it especially balanced by a smarting failure of the to the lack hollowing means. The also the German lost a lot of their precious hunters, all their last activities at the time of the last months of the war were scattered, himself cotentant as says it if well Galland in her book to tempt to intercept more and more enormous masses of hunters and bomber ally. Besides its last exit or he was also wounded, made itself with 12 hunters against..... 700 Thunderbolt, what tells some long on the aerial mastery that the ally possessed to that moment.

Best Regards Fred

J.A.W.
05-14-2013, 05:40 AM
& you Fred, FYI.. On P.103 'Flames in the Sky' by P.Clostermann it is written..

"At Fassberg in 1945 I saw a combat film of Hans Phillip shooting down the four Lightnings of a section one after another.
It might have given budding P-38 pilots something to think about, but luckily the war was over."

& ..."But as a straight fighter it was never as good as the P-51, or even that big brute the P-47 Thunderbolt."

The Jagdwaffe was exemplary in its unmitigated efforts to provide the best feasible response in regard to its bounden duties..
.. until ordered to cease-fire, & in-spite of the crushing odds & manifold difficulties , were mounting operations unstintingly throughout the war..

Nickdfresh
05-14-2013, 06:26 AM
H.G... You cannot be serious..

The air-war over NW Europe in the final year of the war was super-intense..

I what way? The Luftwaffe Jagdwaffe, what was left of it, was being preserved or used for bomber intercepts - largely avoiding combat in key theaters by 1945...


So much so that the USAAF had to relegate its dedicated high-altitude turbo-charged P-38J [see USAAF technical report in post #45 this thread] & P-47D long-range interceptors to the tactical support role [& indeed the P-38 was even tried in the medium bomber role - due to excessive casualty rates] in favour of the P-51..

You mean the P-38L, which was by far the largest variant ever produced. And P-51's only saw Luftwaffe fighters on long range escort missions as the Jagdwaffe was incapable of anything else. I occasionally have a drink with a former P-51 pilot, Don, who flew in Italy at the end of the war. He said the Germans were avoiding fighter combat then and he never engaged a fighter - though there were times he saw them "forming up in the distance" to attempt bomber intercepts. But even then the ill-trained pilots flying questionable equipment weren't particularly effective nor aggressive. He did shoot down a train though... :)


& how many P-38s obtained jet claim/credits? FYI, RAF Tempests were credited [via gun camera film] with every type of Nazi jet flying, inc' He 162..

I don't know. There weren't really that many jets to begin with and they had virtually no impact on the war. Jets were also easy targets when taking off or landing at aerodromes which is why the Allied air forces essentially when goal-picking by the end by smothering fighter bases...


& P-38s were Vne limited to ~100mph less than say, a Tempest [540mph IAS Vne @ 10,000ft] , which was a grave disadvantage compared to 109/190s,
- in their typical attack, then split-S/dive away tactics.


It's funny, yet the P-38 shot down many more aircraft than the Tempest ever did though, so by your logic it was better than the Tempest. :) The Tempest was a low level tactical bomber and is a poor comparison since it was a different concept with a completely different mission and didn't even fly until the P-38 was in production. It should have high performance at low altitudes! The Tempest also never faced a Jagdwaffe filled with well trained pilots that outnumbered them, sometimes two 0r three to one...


Whereas, P-38s in the PTO did not have to contend with such high air-speed capable opponents..

No, just extremely agile aircraft that were the most maneuverable of any WWII fighters despite their drawbacks in other areas...

leccy
05-14-2013, 09:38 AM
It's funny, yet the P-38 shot down many more aircraft than the Tempest ever did though, so by your logic it was better than the Tempest. :) The Tempest was a low level tactical bomber and is a poor comparison since it was a different concept with a completely different mission and didn't even fly until the P-38 was in production. It should have high performance at low altitudes! The Tempest also never faced a Jagdwaffe filled with well trained pilots that outnumbered them, sometimes two 0r three to one...


I believe the Tempest was actually a fighter (what the typhoon was supposed to be), it was better at low to medium altitudes than as a high level fighter.

It was used mostly as ground attack and armed recconaisance, as well as anti V1 duties more to the lack of a credible opposition than its designed role.

hgilley
05-14-2013, 10:07 AM
H.G... You cannot be serious..

The air-war over NW Europe in the final year of the war was super-intense..

So much so that the USAAF had to relegate its dedicated high-altitude turbo-charged P-38J [see USAAF technical report in post #45 this thread] & P-47D long-range interceptors to the tactical support role [& indeed the P-38 was even tried in the medium bomber role - due to excessive casualty rates] in favour of the P-51..

& how many P-38s obtained jet claim/credits? FYI, RAF Tempests were credited [via gun camera film] with every type of Nazi jet flying, inc' He 162..

& P-38s were Vne limited to ~100mph less than say, a Tempest [540mph IAS Vne @ 10,000ft] , which was a grave disadvantage compared to 109/190s,
- in their typical attack, then split-S/dive away tactics.

Whereas, P-38s in the PTO did not have to contend with such high air-speed capable opponents..

Lets not get the Tempest confused with the Typhoon. Tempest had better performance, but reached combat much later, pretty much after the airwar had already been won by the Allies. First Tempest squadrons (only two) began operations in April 1944, first Tempest group began operations in July 1944. Luftwaffe was defeated by May 1944, so the Tempest was too late to have any meaningful role. Sure the Allies flew many many more missions after May 1944, but they were mostly all ground support and strategic bombing missions since the Luftwaffe was nowhere to be found. Lots of air fighting left to be done by the Allies, but the big danger was flak, not the Luftwaffe.

J.A.W.
05-14-2013, 05:33 PM
H.G. if you think that there was no Normandy-invasion to VE day air-war, then you need to do some study on the subject..

It is true that the Tempests were held back in Britain as the primary fighter defence against the Nazi V1 cruise-missile assault on London
[ & P-38s were too slow to catch them, since they flew in at low level & ~400mph ], but they were on the continent by Sept..

From Air Enthusiast /48 P. 20 'Air Superiority a Case Study'
"This was the start of an amazing six months of intense activity for the Tempest Wing, during which they inflicted enormous damage on the German forces & suffered severe losses themselves."

Flying in tactical support of the Allied armies, "Most combat associated with tactical air superiority was expected to take place at low to medium altitudes & the Tempest was thought to be the ideal aircraft...the fastest aircraft in the Allied inventory at medium altitude."

However, [P.31] "Although the Luftwaffe was restricted by the Allies overwhelming superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority. The Germans remained able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end."

Indeed the last Tempest air to air loss was "flown by F/O M. Austin from 486 [NZ] Squadron. He was shot down by a He 162 lightweight jet fighter".

J.A.W.
05-14-2013, 05:40 PM
In April`45, Kiwi Pilot W. Schrader became a Tempest ace in just over a week, flying hard against top line opposition, & Canadian Spitfire pilot R. Audet had earlier managed the same feat in a single mission, [ & not against P-38s either]..

hgilley
05-15-2013, 09:44 AM
H.G. if you think that there was no Normandy-invasion to VE day air-war, then you need to do some study on the subject..

It is true that the Tempests were held back in Britain as the primary fighter defence against the Nazi V1 cruise-missile assault on London
[ & P-38s were too slow to catch them, since they flew in at low level & ~400mph ], but they were on the continent by Sept..

From Air Enthusiast /48 P. 20 'Air Superiority a Case Study'
"This was the start of an amazing six months of intense activity for the Tempest Wing, during which they inflicted enormous damage on the German forces & suffered severe losses themselves."

Flying in tactical support of the Allied armies, "Most combat associated with tactical air superiority was expected to take place at low to medium altitudes & the Tempest was thought to be the ideal aircraft...the fastest aircraft in the Allied inventory at medium altitude."

However, [P.31] "Although the Luftwaffe was restricted by the Allies overwhelming superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority. The Germans remained able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end."

Indeed the last Tempest air to air loss was "flown by F/O M. Austin from 486 [NZ] Squadron. He was shot down by a He 162 lightweight jet fighter".

So, the Luftwaffe with no fuel, no way to train new pilots, their experienced pilots dead or in prison and their aircraft factories being bombed around the clock were putting up a ferocious fight against the Allies? Hardly. Sure, fighter ground support missions were extremely dangerous, much more dangerous than air to air fighting, but that danger wasn't coming from the Luftwaffe. It was coming from the German troops and AAA on the ground

Nickdfresh
05-15-2013, 04:53 PM
I believe the Tempest was actually a fighter (what the typhoon was supposed to be), it was better at low to medium altitudes than as a high level fighter.

It was used mostly as ground attack and armed recconaisance, as well as anti V1 duties more to the lack of a credible opposition than its designed role.

Of course, the point is that there was little left of the Jadgwaffe to actually fight. Most aircraft were moved into tactical roles by default. Even Mustangs assigned to bomber escort were simply rampaging aggressively close to the deck...

Nickdfresh
05-15-2013, 04:56 PM
H.G. if you think that there was no Normandy-invasion to VE day air-war, then you need to do some study on the subject..

It is true that the Tempests were held back in Britain as the primary fighter defence against the Nazi V1 cruise-missile assault on London
[ & P-38s were too slow to catch them, since they flew in at low level & ~400mph ], but they were on the continent by Sept..

From Air Enthusiast /48 P. 20 'Air Superiority a Case Study'
"This was the start of an amazing six months of intense activity for the Tempest Wing, during which they inflicted enormous damage on the German forces & suffered severe losses themselves."

Flying in tactical support of the Allied armies, "Most combat associated with tactical air superiority was expected to take place at low to medium altitudes & the Tempest was thought to be the ideal aircraft...the fastest aircraft in the Allied inventory at medium altitude."

However, [P.31] "Although the Luftwaffe was restricted by the Allies overwhelming superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority. The Germans remained able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end."

Indeed the last Tempest air to air loss was "flown by F/O M. Austin from 486 [NZ] Squadron. He was shot down by a He 162 lightweight jet fighter".

There's a difference between "air superiority" and "air supremacy." The Allies had achieved both as the Luftwaffe was broken on multiple fronts. Some unfortunate Allied pilots were taken down by jets or by Me109's/FW190's. But they faced a much larger hazard from ground fire. The Western air forces simply ran out of targets to bomb and fighters were then sent closer to the deck as opposed to waiting for German fighters to intercept bombers...

J.A.W.
05-15-2013, 06:18 PM
Well, not according to the histories.. Donald Caldwell has a new book out focussing on the fighter defence of the Reich, & gives detailed reports on it.

His earlier book on JG 26 - 'Top Guns of the Luftwaffe' gives a history of their operational service throughout the war on the Western Front..
..including ~800 victory credits over USAAF/RAF aircraft in `44-45..

& includes the statistical fact that the Western Allies were about 7 times more dangerous to fly air combat missions against - than the VVS..

J.A.W.
05-16-2013, 03:32 AM
Seems these guys got fairly busy at times.. http://www.hawkertempest.se/Victories.htm

fredl109
05-16-2013, 08:54 AM
Hello to all, just for information, JAW, Hans Philipp Oberleutnant the second pilot to reach the 200 victories mark (17-3 -1943) total 206 victories Kommodore of the JG1 killed near Nordhorn in aerial fights with Thunderbold the 8-10-1943 . Look for the mistake my dear JAW.
To come back to the German aerial activity in 1944-45, my subject was never to say that there was not any, but the aerial superiority of the allies was such, that it could not replace their losses as more quickly, especially the pilot, the production of hunters was that some to it very important, but that is worth a good plane without a good pilot. You forget a thing, it is that in the Luftwaffe the pilots didn't know the tour of operations, of this fact the a lot of big German aces had disappeared already and the pilots who arrived freshly émoulus of the schools didn't have at all the experience of their eldests. It is said besides by Pierre Clostermann in its book "The Big Circus", and know my dear JAW that the Fock Wulf 190 D were not considered by its inventor Kurt Tank like a very good plane, but like a device of transition toward the FW Ta 152, that would have been him the most important threat for the aviation allied its performances so much were outstanding for the time, the "Mustang" and "Tempest" would have fought a plane that was to them then of very far superior.

For what is the P38 and whatever you told some, he/it will remain in history like a very important plane and those in spite of its detractors, because it is true that some pilots didn't like it, but he/it doesn't remain less of them that the two bigger American ace Bongs and McGuires were on P38. Anyway we won't ever rewrite history it is a fact, we can only try to analyze it. Besides I would say that it is necessary to mistrust the false interpretations of numbers or data, unfortunately internet overflows from it and a lot of pseudo historians make false analyses, be by ignorance or simply for that to make really see a certain community. Fortunately some pilots wrote their memory, and it permits in spite of the few mistakes that it includes to make itself a real idea of that that was the aerial fights during World War II.

Best Regards Fred

hgilley
05-16-2013, 09:22 AM
So, 65 victories in almost 7 months in the last half of 1944 against a beaten Luftwaffe with no gasoline, few experienced pilots and outnumbered in every engagement. Doesn't sound like the Luftwaffe was able to put up much of a fight to me.

J.A.W.
05-16-2013, 06:42 PM
Does the IRS know what your maths is like H.G.?

The Jagdwaffe put up more of a fight than the USAAF P-39/400s did over the Solomon Is/New Guinea..

& Fred, it is true that the best performing war planes of WW2 were fighting over NW Europe in `44-45,
& the P-38 could not find a place in the top ranks of them..

Nickdfresh
05-16-2013, 11:10 PM
Does the IRS know what your maths is like H.G.?

The Jagdwaffe put up more of a fight than the USAAF P-39/400s did over the Solomon Is/New Guinea..

A rather bizarre, dare I say meaningless comparison.


& Fred, it is true that the best performing war planes of WW2 were fighting over NW Europe in `44-45,
& the P-38 could not find a place in the top ranks of them..

There were several squadrons of P-38L's over Europe until the end, probably almost as many Lightnings in the air as what was left of the entire Jagdwaffe...

Nickdfresh
05-16-2013, 11:15 PM
A nice write-up of a P-38 pilot's existence in the PTO: http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html

J.A.W.
05-17-2013, 01:32 AM
Interesting PTO P-38 story, thanks Ndf..
.. We might have expected the Germans in `45..
.. to do as poorly as the PTO P-39/400s..

But was it 900+ Lightnings of the USAAF 9th AF doing airfield strafing on New Years Day `45?

Ah no, that'd be the Jagdwaffe..

As P.Clostermann wrote [ p.161 'The Big Show']..

"What was the Luftwaffe up to? For the general public, naturally, Germany had no aircraft & no pilots left.
This belief was carefully fostered by the Allied information services for a variety of reasons...

...For us who were in daily contact with it & from whom it was impossible to hide the real state of affairs,
the optimism of the American O.W.I. was not without a certain piquancy.
The more Hun fighters the Americans shot down, the more there were!

One fact was for certain:...the Germans succeeded in maintaining a monthly production of 1,200 to 1,700 machines
[2,325 in November`44]" ...

& as Fred commented, the long-nose Focke-Wulf..


" was a formidable opponent. Its general performance put it in the same category as the Tempest & gave it
a distinct edge over the American Mustang, Lightning & Thunderbolt..."


H.G. see if you can find the NW Europe P-38 air-to-air combat claims for Sept `44 to VE day..
..its 'bout a hundred all up.. or a ~20th of the Mustang claim credits..

Nickdfresh
05-17-2013, 06:52 AM
From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich)


With such serious Allied fighter opposition, the Luftwaffe was put under severe pressure in March–April 1944. According to a report made by Adolf Galland, General der Jagdflieger, on 27 April 1944, 500 aircraft and 400 pilots had been lost in the 10 previous operations.[104] Galland also said that in the previous four months 1,000 pilots had been killed. Galland reported that the enemy outnumbered his fighters between 6:1 and 8:1 and the standard of Allied fighter pilot training was "astonishingly high".[105] Some 25% of the German fighter pilot force had been lost in May 1944 alone, while 50% of the available fighters were also each month from March–May 1944.[106] Galland recognised the Luftwaffe was losing the attrition war and pushed for a focus on quality rather than quantity. Galland stated in his 27 April report, "I would at this moment rather have one Me 262 in action than five Bf 109s. I used to say three 109s, but the situation develops and changes."[105]

The need for technical superiority was evident in the losses in the first half of 1944. In January the Luftwaffe had on strength some 2,283 pilots. It lost some 2,262 between January and May 1944, a 99% loss rate.[107] This helped extend USAAF air superiority over the continent.[108] German losses included experienced personnel. The situation was so serious, Galland remarked:

The strained manpower situation in the air defence of the Reich demands urgently the further bringing up of experienced flying personnel from other arms of the service, in particular for the maintenance of fighting power to the air arm, tried pilots of the ground-attack and bomber units, especially officers suitable as formation leaders, will now also have to be drawn upon.[109]

It was a vicious circle. In order to meet frontline requirements training time was cut. Shorter training hours meant a poorer quality of pilot, which in turn increased the likelihood of a pilot being killed in action. The offensive against Axis oil production was forcing a cut in training time was making things even worse.[110]

The position of the Luftwaffe continued to deteriorate throughout 1944. As German territory contracted the number of AAA guns rose. In November–December 1944, the FlaK defenses were more effective at shooting down Allied bombers than the Luftwaffe. One such example indicates that during sustained attacks on the synthetic oil targets inside the Ruhr, 59 USAAF bombers were lost to AAA, while just 13 were lost to German fighters. Heavy AAA did reduce the bombing accuracy as well as acting for a guide for German fighters searching for the bomber stream.[111] Losses reached an all-time high on 26 November, when intercepting a raid, the RLV lost 119 fighters, 60 pilots killed and 32 wounded for just 25 USAAF fighters and six bombers.[112]

hgilley
05-17-2013, 09:38 AM
Interesting PTO P-38 story, thanks Ndf..
.. We might have expected the Germans in `45..
.. to do as poorly as the PTO P-39/400s..

Weird comparison, lightened P-39s did much better against the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front, as I have maintained all along.

But was it 900+ Lightnings of the USAAF 9th AF doing airfield strafing on New Years Day `45?

Ah no, that'd be the Jagdwaffe..

As P.Clostermann wrote [ p.161 'The Big Show']..

"What was the Luftwaffe up to? For the general public, naturally, Germany had no aircraft & no pilots left.
This belief was carefully fostered by the Allied information services for a variety of reasons...

...For us who were in daily contact with it & from whom it was impossible to hide the real state of affairs,
the optimism of the American O.W.I. was not without a certain piquancy.
The more Hun fighters the Americans shot down, the more there were!

One fact was for certain:...the Germans succeeded in maintaining a monthly production of 1,200 to 1,700 machines
[2,325 in November`44]" ...

Germany's aircraft production actually rose during 1944, a great accomplishment, but there was little gasoline and few trained pilots.

& as Fred commented, the long-nose Focke-Wulf..


" was a formidable opponent. Its general performance put it in the same category as the Tempest & gave it
a distinct edge over the American Mustang, Lightning & Thunderbolt..."

FW190D-9 was a nice plane, but only 600 were manufactured and they were only available after D-Day when the airwar was already lost by the Luftwaffe.


H.G. see if you can find the NW Europe P-38 air-to-air combat claims for Sept `44 to VE day..
..its 'bout a hundred all up.. or a ~20th of the Mustang claim credits..

Now JAW, let's get something straight: I'm not a big advocate of the P-38 Lightning. Nice plane, great in the Pacific, but the total cost of operation was about three times that of a single engine fighter (including original cost, maintenance and fuel), it took about twice as long for a pilot to become proficient in a P-38, and they didn't dive well. Not to mention at altitude the pilot nearly froze to death. No other combatant in WWII fielded a single seat twin engine fighter. Only America had the resources to pay that much for a fighter plane. It did have it's advantages and it did to some things well and certainly did it's part in WWII, but in my opinion those resources could have been put to better use.

Nickdfresh
05-17-2013, 11:57 AM
Now JAW, let's get something straight: I'm not a big advocate of the P-38 Lightning. Nice plane, great in the Pacific, but the total cost of operation was about three times that of a single engine fighter (including original cost, maintenance and fuel), it took about twice as long for a pilot to become proficient in a P-38, and they didn't dive well. Not to mention at altitude the pilot nearly froze to death. No other combatant in WWII fielded a single seat twin engine fighter. Only America had the resources to pay that much for a fighter plane. It did have it's advantages and it did to some things well and certainly did it's part in WWII, but in my opinion those resources could have been put to better use.

I myself prefer the P-51D and later overall. The P-51's were easier to learn on and fly, and as stated here many times were cheaper and easier to produce. Given the USAAF's ability to churn out competent, well trained pilots, the P-51 seems like a better overall choice. But that doesn't in anyway reflect the quality of the temperamental Lightening...

It should be stated that most of the problems listed were "fixed" with the P-38L and late model J's, which comprised over 40% of all production Lightnings. The pilot had a heated suit and dive kits were installed making it a phenomenal dive-bomber. It's also been stated here that while many pilots and their commanders did not like the inferior, earlier versions - some pilots felt that with an elite, experienced pilot at the controls, the P-38 exceeded the P-51 overall in performance and as a fighter and that appears to be borne out in today's video game simulations...

leccy
05-17-2013, 05:31 PM
Now JAW, let's get something straight: I'm not a big advocate of the P-38 Lightning. Nice plane, great in the Pacific, but the total cost of operation was about three times that of a single engine fighter (including original cost, maintenance and fuel), it took about twice as long for a pilot to become proficient in a P-38, and they didn't dive well. Not to mention at altitude the pilot nearly froze to death. No other combatant in WWII fielded a single seat twin engine fighter. Only America had the resources to pay that much for a fighter plane. It did have it's advantages and it did to some things well and certainly did it's part in WWII, but in my opinion those resources could have been put to better use.

Not quite true.

Westland Whirlwind and Westland Welkin are two examples and the De Haviland Hornet flew in 1944.

Of course not including the Me 262 or Gloster Meteor jets

Maybe better to say no other country fielded significant numbers of twin piston engined single seat fighters.

J.A.W.
05-17-2013, 05:46 PM
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?

fredl109
05-18-2013, 06:56 AM
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

Nickdfresh
05-18-2013, 08:49 AM
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..

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...

muscogeemike
05-18-2013, 11:06 AM
Ok then guys, we agree..

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

advantages over single-engine contemporaries, performance-wise?

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

Nickdfresh
05-18-2013, 12:08 PM
From Zeno's Warbirds. The 430th "Back Door Gang" in action in the Spring of 1945:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64O_6XXk-M

leccy
05-18-2013, 02:09 PM
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?

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.

Nickdfresh
05-18-2013, 02:58 PM
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.

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...

fredl109
05-18-2013, 05:01 PM
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...


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.

J.A.W.
05-18-2013, 05:20 PM
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..

Nickdfresh
05-18-2013, 05:50 PM
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..


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...

J.A.W.
05-18-2013, 07:55 PM
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..

Nickdfresh
05-19-2013, 08:39 AM
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..

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?

fredl109
05-19-2013, 11:32 AM
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

J.A.W.
05-19-2013, 05:05 PM
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

Nickdfresh
05-19-2013, 05:18 PM
...
In Korea the P-51 loss rates were no worse than the radial engine USN Corsairs..

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?

J.A.W.
05-19-2013, 05:25 PM
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..

J.A.W.
05-19-2013, 06:24 PM
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

J.A.W.
05-19-2013, 10:29 PM
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

Nickdfresh
05-20-2013, 05:21 PM
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

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...

Nickdfresh
05-20-2013, 05:32 PM
Ndf, here's evidence that the USAAF had basically lost interest in pursuing P-38
performance improvements, [u]& likely due to those structural issues..[airframe aero-compressibility/weight limits]

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

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...

J.A.W.
05-20-2013, 05:49 PM
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..

Nickdfresh
05-20-2013, 06:16 PM
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..

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?....

J.A.W.
05-20-2013, 07:15 PM
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..

Nickdfresh
05-21-2013, 07:15 AM
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..

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...

J.A.W.
05-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Ndf, you are wrong about the Spitfire.. it didn't get the Typhoon-type clear-view bubble-canopy 'til `45, 2 years later..

The P-47 got a very close copy of the Typhoon/Tempest canopy & the P-38 never got one, it always had the multiple part, framed type..

If you have another look at the reference in post #138, you can check the USAAF stats for loss ratios..

The USAAF knew the P-38 had reached its best-by-date, & did not pursue the 'K' model mods..

The ~440 mph Vne airspeed P-38 limitation did not apply to the P-82..

J.A.W.
05-21-2013, 07:06 PM
Ndf, this link specifically describes the P-38 Vne limitations..

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html#Chapt3-35

Nickdfresh
05-22-2013, 06:41 PM
Ndf, you are wrong about the Spitfire.. it didn't get the Typhoon-type clear-view bubble-canopy 'til `45, 2 years later..

The P-47 got a very close copy of the Typhoon/Tempest canopy & the P-38 never got one, it always had the multiple part, framed type..

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...

J.A.W.
05-23-2013, 12:42 AM
Confusion eh?

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..

tankgeezer
05-23-2013, 12:57 AM
.......

Nickdfresh
05-23-2013, 05:35 PM
Confusion eh?

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'..

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:

http://wallpaperan.com/wallpaper/f_15_eagle_wallpaper.jpg

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...

J.A.W.
05-23-2013, 06:25 PM
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..

J.A.W.
05-23-2013, 09:35 PM
Here's another useful primary reference..

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm

Nickdfresh
05-24-2013, 05:50 AM
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..

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?

Nickdfresh
05-24-2013, 05:54 AM
Here's another useful primary reference..

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm


Did you bother to read this one?

J.A.W.
05-31-2013, 04:18 AM
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..


"Idiotic" hmmm.. now, if I noted you as being obtuse to the point of idiocy, that would be fair.. since

you consistently miss the point that the USAAF in `44 had the P-82 specs on the table, the P-51 results

on the scoreboard & could bloody well see that the over-priced P-38 was past its best-by-date..

Open your eyes Ndf , & look at a P-38 canopy, there are FRAMES right across the pilot's lateral eyeline..

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?..

Nickdfresh
05-31-2013, 05:20 AM
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?..

You're very "special." Aren't you? :mrgreen:

J.A.W.
05-31-2013, 06:05 PM
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..

J.A.W.
05-31-2013, 09:11 PM
For interesting US pilot's viewpoint of flying Spitfires over Berlin in preference to Lightnings..[in PRU role].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3SrjLlcUY

J.A.W.
05-31-2013, 10:39 PM
Diving speed limitations [Vne] in mph IAS @ 10,000ft..

P-38L.......420 mph
Fw 190.....466 mph
Spitfire IX.470 mph
MeteorIII..500 mph
P-47D.......500 mph
P-51D.......505 mph
Typhoon....520 mph
Tempest....540 mph

royal744
06-23-2013, 07:41 PM
Hands down, this may be the most exhausting thread I have read on here. Is it over yet?

tankgeezer
06-23-2013, 07:58 PM
One can only hope... ;)

Nickdfresh
06-24-2013, 05:33 PM
Well, since you guys commented in it, I guess it's not over... :)