Quote:
|
Originally Posted by syscom3 The reason I chose the P38, was its phenominal range.
It brought the fight to the Luftwaffe and changed the course of the daylight heavy bombing campaign. |
I think you might be interested in this post from the Historic-Battles forum by the poster 'robert' ( a poster noted for his knowledge of aviation matters) on the P-38
"The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:
1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.
2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.
3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.
"The extremely low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.
"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."
- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman
Even as a reconnaissance aircraft in Europe it was replaced as soon as possible; the F-5 (recce version of the P-3
was restricted to a 300-mile radius after mid-July 1943, and couldn't operate at over 30,000 ft. Col. Homer Sanders, the CO of the 7th PG, who provided reconnaissance for the 8th AF, specifically asked Ira Eaker, the CO of the 8th AF, for Spitfire Mk. XIs, and they began to receive them in November, 1943. As writer Paul Ludwig notes, "From the very beginning, use of the Spitfire PR Mk.XIs dramatically changed the number and character of missions flown by the 7th PG."
In the Pacific, the P-38 was indeed the top-scoring USAAF fighter. But it didn't shoot down more Japanese planes than any other fighter, as many people claim; somewhere, the word USAAF seems to have been deleted from the sentence. In reality, the F6F Hellcat destroyed almost three times as many Japanese aircraft, and the F4U Corsair also outscored the P-38. The totals are 5,156 for the F6F; 2,140 for the F4U; and 1,700 for the P-38. It simply didn't do the job in either the Pacific or the ETO as well as other US fighters. In the ETO it ranked behind the P-51 and P-47; in the Pacific the F6F and F4U.
The P-38 was quite a bit slower than other contemporary US, British, or German fighters. The fastest fighter version of the Lightning was the P-38L, which could do 414 mph. This was at least 20-30 mph slower than the P-51B/D, P-47D, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, Bf 109K, or Fw 190D. Even with the wing flap introduced on the P-38J-25, it couldn't turn with other fighters throughout a full turn. The flap helped in the initial turn, but then the laws of physics took over. The wing loading (weight vs. wing area) of the P-38L was 63.1 (lbs per square foot). The Spitfire Mk. XIV was 35.0. There's no way the P-38 could have stayed with a Spit or Zero through the turn. The combination of being both slower and less agile than almost any other front line fighter of the time is hardly a point in the P-38's favor. To its credit, its ceiling was excellent, at 44,000 ft., a mark bettered only by the Spitfire. It had half the normal range of the P-51 - remember, it had to carry fuel for two engines; normal range for the P-38J/L was 450 miles, against the 950 miles of the P-51D. It's not even close. Its twin-engined configuration was perhaps its worst feature. If one engine was put out, it was a sitting duck for enemy fighters; one quote I have seen recounted how a pilot had seen only one P-38 return from the combat area on one engine during the course of his combat tour. (See American Fighters of World War Two Volume One by Rene Francillon, page 4
.
One thing often brought up by P-38 supporters is that the top two US aces, Bong and McGuire, used only P-38s. This is true, and I admit that its good points were perfect for fighting the Japanese fighters. However, it's also true that only three of the top 17 US aces flew P-38s, and besides, you can't judge an aircraft's effectiveness as a whole by one or two pilots who may have rung up large scores in them. Other US-built fighters have compiled similar figures. Both Bong and McGuire's totals were pretty much equalled by Finnish pilots flying Brewster Buffalos and Soviet pilots flying P-39 Airacobras. Hans Wind shot down 39 Soviet aircraft while flying the Buffalo, only one short of Bong's total. That doesn't automatically make those aircraft the best either.
So what do we have? An aircraft whose performance was inferior in all important respects (save ceiling) to contemporary US, British, and German designs; which had only an even kill ratio and the worst loss rate of any US fighter in the ETO; which was pulled out of escort duty in Europe as soon as possible; and which in the theater that it performed best in, the Pacific, was outscored almost three-to-one by another fighter. I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the versatility of the P-38; it could do a lot of different jobs fairly well, many of which it was not originally designed for."
Bf-109 
Linear Mode
