Interesting P-38 Comments

V-1710 · 08-30-2006, 03:43 AM

Some interesting P-38 comments from various WWII pilots: First off, concentration of firepower: There seems to be 2 views- one is that the P-38 had an advantage over other fighters in that since the guns were all in the nose, they were aimed straight ahead. No convergence issues. The other view was that since all the guns were in the nose, the concentration of firepower was over a smaller area, making aiming more critical. I think I would tend to believe the former, thinking that if you had the bogie in your sight, you had a good chance no matter the distance (to a point). Stall chracteristics: All argee the P-38 had the best stall of any WWII fighter. 2 reasons for this. First, the airfoil of the P-38 wing was such that it stalled from the center outward, which helped stability leading into the stall. Second, the P-38 was just about the only WWII fighter that had a center of gravity below the airframe's center of lift. Any other fighter would fall off on one wing of the other at the point of stall, as the center of gravity was above the center of lift. Was the P-38 given a fair chance in Europe? Subject of much debate, but the facts are it didn't have a very good heater and when it was in service there the 8th. was still unconvinced escorts were really needed. Probably the best recon. ship in the European theater, though. Was it a coincidence that many of the P-80 test pilots were men with considerable P-38 time? Since they were both products of Lockhead that was a factor, but with no torque due to the contra-rotating props, tricycle gear, and aerodynamically clean enough to go stupid fast in a dive, one would think a P-38 pilot would be more at home in a P-80 than a Mustang driver. The P-38 was the only U.S.A.A.C./U.S.A.A.F. fighter in production the first day of U.S. involvement in WWII and the last. And, least we forget that one of the P-38's principal designers was a man by the name of Kelly Johnson, who went on to distinguish himself by designing a few more airplanes for Lockheed..........

Glider · 08-30-2006, 04:14 PM

Fair points but the only one I would disagree with is the PR statement. The Mossie and Spit were in my mind ahead of the game in this area.
I know that after the 8th Airforce arrived in the UK one of the first things they asked for were Spitfire XI's to replace the P38 in the PR role.

syscom3 · 08-30-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Fair points but the only one I would disagree with is the PR statement. The Mossie and Spit were in my mind ahead of the game in this area.
I know that after the 8th Airforce arrived in the UK one of the first things they asked for were Spitfire XI's to replace the P38 in the PR role.

That never happened. Only the F4 and F5 Lightnings had the performance and range to get deep into Germany. And that big nose could carry the camera's without displacing fuel tanks.

The 8th AF was always happy with the performace of these recon aircraft although the pilots froze like their fighter counterparts.

Glider · 08-31-2006, 12:31 AM

The USAAF’s 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force used Spitfire Mark XIs from November 1943 to April 1945

V-1710 · 08-31-2006, 02:47 AM

I remember reading that Gen. Doolittle surveyed the D-Day landings personally in a P-38.

FLYBOYJ · 08-31-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-1710

Was it a coincidence that many of the P-80 test pilots were men with considerable P-38 time?

Are you referring to company test pilots or people like Richard Bong who was assigned to Lockheed as a government test pilot?

syscom3 · 08-31-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The USAAF’s 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force used Spitfire Mark XIs from November 1943 to April 1945

That was a composite group of one squad of Spits and three additional squads of F4/F5's.

The 9th AF also had six F4/F5 squads and the 12th/15th AF's had six F4/F5 squads.

I am glad you mentioned this because I discovered I had some interesting autographs on the cover page of the book I referred to, "The Mighty Eight". I cant remember when it happened (maybe 1990-1991?), but I had Gabby Grabeski, Jerry Johnson, Paul Conger and two others of the 56th FG put their names to the book!

redcoat · 08-31-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

That never happened. Only the F4 and F5 Lightnings had the performance and range to get deep into Germany. And that big nose could carry the camera's without displacing fuel tanks.

The 8th AF was always happy with the performace of these recon aircraft although the pilots froze like their fighter counterparts.

Sorry, but 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.

FLYBOYJ · 08-31-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

Sorry, but 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.

But they were only operated in one squadron in numbers. The 7th Photo recon Group consisted of 4 squadrons, 13th, 14th, 22nd, and 27th. I show the 13th operating F-5A-Es through 1945 although they did have some Spits. The 14th seemed to have most of the Spits, the 22nd and 27th had F-5A-Es but also used a few Spits. It Seems the 7th PG used these aircraft plus a few P-51s right through the end of the war....

Glider · 08-31-2006, 09:26 PM

The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.

Glider · 08-31-2006, 09:35 PM

Just found the following

Operating out of England, the photorecon Lightnings suffered from all the problems faced by their fighter brethren. High-altitude missions were generally limited to a maximum of 25,000 feet, as the Lightning had engine trouble at higher altitude. Even flying at 400mph at this altitude instead of at the expected 35,000 feet meant that the Lightnings were vulnerable to interception by the Luftwaffe. The Germans were well aware of the purpose of a single aircraft at high altitude, and their radar could easily track it. If the intercepting Bf 109s or Fw 190s were in position and given a sufficient altitude advantage, they could overtake the Lightning in a dive more easily than they could the British Mosquito. A photo ship's only real defense was to fly an erratic course to avoid interception by not allowing the German controller to position his fighters successfully. Additionally, the hope was that an erratic flight course would conceal the target objective.

Because of the continued unreliability of the Allison engines at high altitude, the Lightning was replaced by reverse-LendLease Spitfire P.R.XIs for the most dangerous target-assessment missions. The Lightnings were returned to the job of photographically mapping northwest Europe for the planned invasion. To avoid alerting the Germans to the real invasion site, they flew missions from Blankenberge to Dunkerque, and from Le Touquet to St. Vaast de la Hague-virtually the entire coast of the English Channel-and they flew three missions elsewhere for every one flown over Normandy and the Cherbourg Peninsula.

It would appear that the Mossie and the Spit had advantages over the F4/F5 in the PR role.

FLYBOYJ · 08-31-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.

Possibly, or maybe they 7th PRG could get enough birds over to Europe. I would guess the F-5s were used for long range missions. Here's the "Little Friends" site, got some great photos...

8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk

FLYBOYJ · 08-31-2006, 09:38 PM

Great post Glider, that answers it!!!

redcoat · 08-31-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.

Especially in the winter months, the F4/5 had difficulty operating over 30,000ft. making them highly vulnerable to higher flying Me 109's.

ps, I posted this before I read Gliders excellent reply

k9kiwi · 08-31-2006, 11:34 PM

The following is a description of a PR flight over enemy territory, written by an anonymous New Zealand pilot about the pressurised Spitfire PRU around 40,000 feet.

"The engine itself, which was practically in one's lap, only made a sort of ticking noise like a clockwork mouse. The cold, the low pressure and the immobilizing effect of the elaborate equipment and bulky clothing in the tiny cockpit had the effect of damping down and subduing all the senses, except the sense of sight. On a clear day one could see an immense distance, whole countries at a time. Around them a scrap was going on, the fighters glinting as they circled in the sun. I felt like a man looking down into a pool watching minnows playing near the bottom.

Outside the aircraft the temperature might be 60 or 70 degrees below freezing and if, as occasionally happened, the cabin heating failed, the cold was agonizing. Everything in the cockpit became covered with frost and long icicles grew from the pilots mask like Jack Frosts beard. Most alarming of all, the entire wind screen and blister hood was liable to frost over so that it was impossible to see out. At such times the air seemed full of Messerschmitts."