Interesting P-38 Comments

[Jank]

Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt & Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.

To be fair though, the USN was over represented.

More on the impression the P-38L left on the fighter and test pilots in the conference.

Best all-around cockpit

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Worst cockpit

Most votes - P-38

Nicest arrangement of engine controls

Most votes - P-51
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most convenient gear and flap controls

Most votes - F8F
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most comfortable cockpit

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around visibility

Most votes - P-51
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around armor

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best for overload takeoff from small area

Most votes - F6F
P-38 tied for 5th place

Nicest harmonization of control forces

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 received no votes

Best ailerons at 350mph

Most votes - P-51
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best ailerons at 100mph

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 9th place

Best elevator

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place

Which powerplant operation inspires the most confidence

Most votes - Pratt & Whitney R-2800
Allison voted last place

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Jank

Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt & Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.

All of this is true but, page 248 of the report, the Appendix right before the data sheets, state in the third paragraph: "The total number of cards turned in by each services is listed at the beginning of the summary for each aircraft. In general, the British representatives in pilot comments is small; furthermore few pilots flew airplanes of their own service. The comments are therefore about half from contractors' pilots, fifth or so from British pilots, and the remainder from the service not sponsoring the aircraft in question."

The comments on the P-38L were listed as follows:
Army-1
Navy-9
British-5
Contractors-13

And, if you figure that probably most (maybe all, since the aircraft contractor pilots would already be familar with there own aircraft) of the contractors were competition, then, by far, the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L. I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in.

[Jank]

davparlr said, " I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in."

I would agree with that and just as the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L as a result of the fact that few pilots flew airplanes of their own service, neither were they prone to be favorable to any of the aircraft.

The 21 areas voted on above had a general 9:15 vote ratio of USAAF to USN (The USN had 2/3 more) and yet the P-47 still managed to ilk out top votes for most comfortable cockpit, best all-around armor, best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet and best strafer.

And the comments breakdown of the P-47 was far more lopsided between USAAF and USN than with the P-38 (1:14 as opposed to 1:9). It was as follows:

Army-1
Navy-14
British-4
Contractors-10

Of interest also on page 248 is the following paragraph:

"Separate test break-downs for each service and the contractors showed no significant differences in the results; the comments have therefore not been distinguished as to the auspices of the pilot making them."

[wmaxt]

Another point is that there were no pilots/ground crew familiar with the P-38. Most Fighter pilots of that time had an automatic prejudice against twin engined fighters. Check out this story about a pilot, his first impression and his eventual attitude about the P-38. P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey The first reaction with the P-38 was normally a low one because "Everyone knows a twin can't compete with a single engined fighter. Heres another story about P-38Ms against the aircraft in the '45/'46 era combair015.htm
moreover remember its worst kill ratio was 4:1 while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

-150F? That must be a typo



Escort/bombing missions in the PTO and CBI were always done at far lower altitudes.




I posted informnation about that several months ago. That has to be the record for range for a fighter mission. Not even the 7th AF P47N's went on mission lenghts like that over Japan.

Yes the -150 should be -50f

Not everywhere, in the CBI probably not, the Pacific theaters were frequently at high altitudes - not all, tactical missions were always at low altitudes - but a fairly high proportion of them were strategic and at high altitudes. For instance even just flying over New Guinea you were above 20,000ft just to miss the mountains! Long range missions were almost always above 15,000ft and frequently above 20,000ft for both fuel efficiency and suprise. Further strategic missions in the MTO were at or above 20,000ft. In both the Pacific and Med a favorite tactic (tactical) was bombers at 12,000ft to 15,000ft, P-40s about 5,000ft above that and P-38s above that often to about 25,000ft. Also several Japanese mention the P-38s almost always came from above, and a 15,000ft cruise altitude for Japanese aircraft was fairly normal, that places the P-38s at least 5,000ft above or 20,000ft. Heres a site by someone who has researched the P-38 and interviewed many of its pilots
The P38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620) theres a lot of info here on the Lightning.

I believe your right about it being the longest mission and he claims they were using 165gal drop tanks.

My main points, there are two, are first: the conditions in Europe were encountered elsewhere but few of the problems were. Second: incorrect operations and usage, as commented on by Doolittle, had a very great impact on the outcome/issues the P-38 had.

Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines! The P-38 esp the early ones weren't perfect but it always had an edge over its contemporaries if you learned to fly it. Even German commanders have made issues about the P-38s superiority, check out Stienhoffs remarks to Galland at this site:
Planes and Pilots of WWII

wmaxt

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!"

Certainly impressive. Reminds me of another high kill ratio in the Pacific. In one 18 day period in May of 1945, the 318th, often outnumbered 15 to 1, managed to rack up 102 air to air kills for a loss of only 3 of their P-47N's. (That's a ratio of 34:1)

Newspapers from coast to coast have acclaimed our Group as the

For more information on the Mighty 318th and it's exploits against the Japanese see:

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

[davparlr]

All of the comments above are good. My thoughts about the P-38 are as follows:
-In capable hands the P-38 was a formidable fighter with very good range with external fuel.
-Pilots proficient in the P-38 was confident in its abilty against contemporary fighters.
-Wartime perfomance is self explainatory
-It did have some unique drawbacks
-It seem to be complex with an increase pilot workload requiring more time to be capable
-In 1944-45, it was slow relative to contempory fighters. 414 mph was 10-20 mph slower. It could probably dive pretty good somewhat offsetting speed disadvantage.
-Mission reliability would be less than a single engine plane, e.g., there would be twice the probability of engine failure for any given time. However, if the engine failure was catastropic, the P-38 had a much better chance of returning so safety-of-flight was better. A classical trade-off between mission reliability and safety-of-flight reliability.
-Maintance hour per flight hour would be greater, reducing available aircraft, which may have been an issue early in the war, e.g. Aleutian campaign, South Pacific, etc.
-The P-38 was more expensive and I am sure had a higher operating cost, althought both of these were not significant in WWII.

Sill very capable, flexible and deadly. A great aircraft with a great record.

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!"

Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.

Here's a painting of Doolitle's flight over the beaches of Normandy. Robert Taylor, the artist, wrote the following account:

"Sitting around waiting for intelligence reports was not Jimmy Doolittle’s style. He was going to see for himself what was happening! With Pat Partridge as wingman, they took off flying P-38 Lightnings – chosen for their distinctive profile in the hopes they would deter friendly fire – and climbed above the overcast."



On a similar note, when Japan surrendered, they were initially going to use P-47N's from the 318th to escort the surrender delegation which was flying in on two Betty's. It was decided that they would play it safe and use P-38's from the 8th and 49th groups instead as it would be highly unlikely to mistake the incoming formation as a Japanese attack.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

"Col. McAfee had to explain to his men why the 318th would not be escorting the surrender delegation to Ie Shima as originally planned. The bottom line was aircraft identification. Two "Betty" bombers escorted by a bunch of P-47s could easily be misidentified as an enemy formation. Indeed, Marine F4U Corsairs had tried to attack 318th Thunderbolts at least once (they outran them rather than engage). No one wanted a SNAFU and there was no Japanese plane that looked anything like a P-38 Lightning. So P-38s would escort the surrender delegation. Period."

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Jank

wmaxt said, "Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!"

Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.

Here's a painting of Doolitle's flight over the beaches of Normandy. Robert Taylor, the artist, wrote the following account:

"Sitting around waiting for intelligence reports was not Jimmy Doolittle’s style. He was going to see for himself what was happening! With Pat Partridge as wingman, they took off flying P-38 Lightnings – chosen for their distinctive profile in the hopes they would deter friendly fire – and climbed above the overcast."



On a similar note, when Japan surrendered, they were initially going to use P-47N's from the 318th to escort the surrender delegation which was flying in on two Betty's. It was decided that they would play it safe and use P-38's from the 8th and 49th groups instead as it would be highly unlikely to mistake the incoming formation as a Japanese attack.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

"Col. McAfee had to explain to his men why the 318th would not be escorting the surrender delegation to Ie Shima as originally planned. The bottom line was aircraft identification. Two "Betty" bombers escorted by a bunch of P-47s could easily be misidentified as an enemy formation. Indeed, Marine F4U Corsairs had tried to attack 318th Thunderbolts at least once (they outran them rather than engage). No one wanted a SNAFU and there was no Japanese plane that looked anything like a P-38 Lightning. So P-38s would escort the surrender delegation. Period."

With respect to D-Day and the surrender escort, that is undoubtedly true as the P-38s area because as you put it "Easy Identification". I don't have the back up but he flew P-38s on other occasions to.

Dave, The L model could go faster than 414mph, there are several reports including a AAF test, that its top speed at ~25,000ft was as high as 443mph. I only have a Lockheed graph at this time so I can't nail it down as fact (I require at least two different and reliable sources before I'll accept this kind of stuff as fact). Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Absolute top speed is only an issue in level flight in a relatively straight line ie. persuing/running. Even using 414mph the only enemy fighter that exceeded that was the Bf-109K with special fuel. The P-51 was only faster (using 414mph) between 20,000ft and 27,000ft at all other altitudes the P-38 was as fast or faster.
2. After two turns speed was running in the 250mph to 325mph range anyway with energy retention and acceleration being much more important, the P-38 excelled at both. These speeds also allowed the P-38 to use its maneuvering flaps letting it turn with about anything out there.
3. In a bounce/escape dive the level top speed doesn't enter into the equation.
4. Finally the maximum top speed is only valid at one altitude/condition so in reality it was only a bench mark and even that was dependant on aircraft condition.

wmaxt

[Soren]

Now that is just pure nonsense wmaxt ! Nearly every German fighter in service by 44 could easily do over 414 mph - the K-4 did 450 + mph for christs sake ! Even the A-8, which was considered rather slow by German fighter pilots, could go 14 mph faster than that !

And about using maneuver flaps against German fighters, well if you had a wish of getting shot down then thats what you would've done - dropping flaps when fighting the FW-190 would get you killed VERY quickly ! And doing it against a Bf-109 would bring you into trouble equally fast.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

With respect to D-Day and the surrender escort, that is undoubtedly true as the P-38s area because as you put it "Easy Identification". I don't have the back up but he flew P-38s on other occasions to.

Dave, The L model could go faster than 414mph, there are several reports including a AAF test, that its top speed at ~25,000ft was as high as 443mph. I only have a Lockheed graph at this time so I can't nail it down as fact (I require at least two different and reliable sources before I'll accept this kind of stuff as fact). Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Absolute top speed is only an issue in level flight in a relatively straight line ie. persuing/running. Even using 414mph the only enemy fighter that exceeded that was the Bf-109K with special fuel. The P-51 was only faster (using 414mph) between 20,000ft and 27,000ft at all other altitudes the P-38 was as fast or faster.
2. After two turns speed was running in the 250mph to 325mph range anyway with energy retention and acceleration being much more important, the P-38 excelled at both. These speeds also allowed the P-38 to use its maneuvering flaps letting it turn with about anything out there.
3. In a bounce/escape dive the level top speed doesn't enter into the equation.
4. Finally the maximum top speed is only valid at one altitude/condition so in reality it was only a bench mark and even that was dependant on aircraft condition.

wmaxt

All you have said is good. I know that top speed in only a certain part of the equation for fighting. The info you have provided is probably more important. Unfortunately we often have top speed and little else in order to do an analysis (especially my data).

I noted in my research that the P-38 was faster than most of the enemy planes until late in the war.

You have certainly convinced me that the P-38 was a formidable fighting machine in the right hands. And the fact that the pilots had confidence in it also makes a good point. Pilots do not have confidence in aircraft that doesn't give them a fighting chance.

The comment in the fighter study about it not being a "modern" fighter is strange and smells of a bias input.

[syscom3]

The P38 was a 1938 design.

And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.

Plus it wasnt designed for mass production, thus it had a complicated design and structure.

So yes it wasnt a modern type of fighter of what was expected in 1944/1945.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 was a 1938 design.

And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.

Plus it wasnt designed for mass production, thus it had a complicated design and structure.

So yes it wasnt a modern type of fighter of what was expected in 1944/1945.

Yes it was a 1938 design and even late in the war it was considered advanced esp with items like hydraulic ailerons and dive slats.

It was designed as a fighter, the term interceptor was a label Kelesly used to let the contract for the design competition because the AAF had put a hold on new "Persuit" planes. However Lockheed did select the wing for climb making it a prime interceptor if one wished to use it that was.

Your right it wasn't particularly good for production, then again one (1) factory built 9,926 P-38s in 4 years. The last 8 months the P-80 was also built in the same factory. Had the P-38 been built in a second factory in '43 starting with the J model there would have been ~14,000/16,000 P-38s out there. The low number was due to the WPB refusal to set up a second factory. I belive of the Major US fighters the P-38 was the only one to go so long without a second factory. Commanders were begging for them in the MTO and the Pacific, Doolittle faced with high demand and fewer aircraft settled on the Mustang - not because it was better but because he could get more of them creating more consistency in inventories, planning and training.

? The L model out performed the P-51D in every category except top speed between 22,000ft and 27,000ft and there is evidence that even that may not be true. Against an P-51H model it came up short on top speed but was still equal or exceeded it in other areas. They set up a second factory in 1945, does that suggest it was considered less capable when compared to the P-51H and P-47N both in production at that time?

Doolittle himself felt "The Lightning was far ahead of all but one (1) or two (2) of the most outstanding fighters of WWII".

And to wrap it up, in July 1944 with the introduction of the Me-262 ALL piston aircraft were just marking time the P-51H was obsolete before it went into production.

Soren, I mentioned the Bf-109K models earlier. they couldn't hit 452 without the C3 fuel and the evidence suggests that that fuel was only available intermittently and in small quantities. The Fw-190D and Ta-152s are a possible but the only tests I've seen show 414mph for the Fw-190D9 and I will need two corroborating test reports from separate sources before I accept a different figure. I'm not going to just accept an internet source theres too much crap out there, in regards to internet P-38 specs, even P-38 sites use METO power performance figures and those are often mixed or just plain wrong, and are inaccurate when referring to best performance. I have to assume the same level of inaccuracy (or worse due to the lack of surviving information) in regards to Luftwaffe aircraft.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.

Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.

Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.

I agree totally.

Add to that it would have given Lockheed the breathing room to include the unified power control and the K model that made the L look like it was stuck in the mud, with initial climb in the 5,000ft/mn and top speed ~450mph range.

wmaxt