...searching for the best USAAF interceptor...

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

We're talking 1943....

True, but there were some talk of 1945 too. For 43 the Lightning would do the trick.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My vote goes for the Lightning as well, for reasons stated by lots of people here. I am not going to write a book on it.

[syscom3]

If all the P38 was going to do is shoot down bombers, then -38 is the best bet. The centrally located MG's acted like can openers and the tight pattern allowed the pilot to begin opening fire from longer ranges.

But, I'd say that in 1945, the F4U-5 and perhaps the P47N were superior to it.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Erich

wmaxt:

wasn't as effective as the P-38 ? are you basing this entirely on your acct of the P-38 numbers given to total kills ?

~ Man, asking the 8th AF fighter pilots that I have been honoured to interview, they all thought the Stang was superior to the P-38 except in ground attack work

thanks for putting up the comparitive totals, indeed, where was your reference(s) for these please ?



E ♫

To a point you are right part of it at least. Air to air kills is certainly not the only criteria by a long shot. I've heard (unfortunately not in person) from a group of P-38/P-51 pilots that the P-38 was better A/A, Art Heiden who's even let his opinion be made public. There are also a number of pilots (most in the 8th) that only flew early versions abd their complaint was the cold not its performance. The Pacific pilots were very much pro P-38s to. Not to minimize either side, there are lots of opinions.

The problem with other criteria is that I've had trouble finding good data about ground attack, mostly comments about how successful the mission was. I will keep trying. The production info for the P-51 was Mustang- Mustanges web page. P-38 info from Warren Bodies book on the P-38 and the P-47 data from several web sites. The Kill scores are from a post by Pips
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...sses-4089.html
This was the best way I could present it at this time.

The P-38 was competitive for each contemporary model and was a very fine aircraft in all the rolls asked of it - perfect, no. This goes for all the aircraft because comprimises have to be made for each role the aircraft did as I'm sure everyone here already knows.

My intention was and is to show that plane for plane the P-38s contribution was as great or greater than the other AAF aircraft based on ability of the aircraft/pilots. The P-51 was an inexpensive but very good aircraft. Its only claim to fame was escort (in huge numbers) and finaly the ground attacks (after we owned the sky) for the last 8months of the war in Europe. One P-38/P51 pilot (Elliot Dent) said, the P-51 was a super P-40 and not in the same leage. The P-38 never had those advantages and look at what was achieved just as a fighter. The P-51 never amounted to anything in the Pacific. BTW the P-38 ran from 500 to a high of 750 aircraft in the Pacific until '45 it was never anywhere in great numbers.

Statistics are easy to warp, I think/tried to keep these honest and representitive of the qualities of these aircraft. Comparing scores etc directly is terribly unfair and make no sense if one is only availabe half or less of the time of the other comparee's did.

Sorry I was long winded and maybe a little over the top - its not that simple. Just think, though, what if the P-38 were second sourced in '42? Or the WPB had alowed production of the P-38K in '43? The P-38 had issues esp the early ones but its performance was there!

wmaxt

[Jank]

The P-38 had some serious engine and other issues until the advent of the "J" model.

P-38: Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
Many of the P-38's assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight. The intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that could lower engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge. These problems could have been fixed at the squadron level. Yet, they were not. It took the P-38J-25-LO and L model to eliminate these headaches.

P-38 in European Theatre
The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once.

The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire.

These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down.

Earlier Lightnings had problems with high-speed dives. When the airspeed reached a sufficiently high value, the controls would suddenly lock up and the Lightning would tuck its nose down, making recovery from the dive difficult. In the worst case, the wings of the Lightning could be ripped off if the speed got too high. This problem caused the Lightning often to be unable to follow its Luftwaffe opponents in a dive, causing many of the enemy to be able to escape unscathed. The problem was eventually traced to the formation of a shock wave over the wing as the Lightning reached transonic speeds, this shock wave causing the elevator to lose much of its effectiveness. The problem was not cured until the advent of the P-38J-25-LO, which introduced a set of compressibility flaps under the wing which changed the pattern of the shock wave over the wing when they were extended, restoring the function of the elevator.

The P-38J version of the Lightning cured many of the ills that had been suffered by the earlier versions of the Lockheed fighter, producing a truly world-class fighter which could mix it up with virtually any other fighter in the world.

[davparlr]

wmaxt, you have done an admirable job of enlightening us to the capabilities and contribution of the P-38. I am certainly more impressed by it, almost as impressed as I am by you knowledge of it.

[wmaxt]

A couple of things I need to clarify
Photo recon versions ov the P-38 could have been as low as 900, the number I used above is a commonly cited number but the actual qty is unknown as it was a common conversion at refit centers and in the feild. Approximately 500 were used in the ETO/MTO plus spares and training aircraft.
The number of stateside aircraft is an educated est on my part and include spares, prototypes, training, refit/modification centers, and depots for shipping. The first 796 (by count on production lists) P-38s were not combat worthy. I used the same number for all three aircraft because it seemed reasonable to me that more aircraft would be overkill and fewer unreasonable the other functions were required by all aircraft.

Jank yes I mentioned the "Issues" of earlier aircraft but did not detail them, however ALL those serious problems are included in the 451 P-38s the 8th AF lost in Europe to all causes. I'll say it again ALL those problems, enemy losses, training accidents (you'd be suprised at how many) collisions and wright offs added up to 451 P-38s lost!! Check out the 8th AF combat losses page
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8thaflosses.shtml
The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference. At the time the P-38 was the only plane the AAF had that could compete in Europe they had to fly it anyway.

Dave, thanks, but I'm not infalable and I don't know it all, I find more every day about all the planes here. If you see something that doesn't make sense please point it out.

wmaxt

[Tony Williams]

I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the Bell P-63A Kingcobra - this just sneaks into the 1943 timeframe (first deliveries in October). It had a maximum altitude of 43,000 feet and climbed to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes, at which it did 410 mph. That big cannon could (for once) have been useful against bombers too.

The max speed and altitude performance were similar to the P-38J, but the P-63 climbed faster. The Soviets, who were the main users, employed it as a high-altitude interceptor I believe.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the Bell P-63A Kingcobra - this just sneaks into the 1943 timeframe (first deliveries in October). It had a maximum altitude of 43,000 feet and climbed to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes, at which it did 410 mph. That big cannon could (for once) have been useful against bombers too.

The max speed and altitude performance were similar to the P-38J, but the P-63 climbed faster. The Soviets, who were the main users, employed it as a high-altitude interceptor I believe.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

? The P-38J in METO power climbed to 15,000ft in 5 min and 25,000ft in 9 min Given that climb rate decreases with altitude the P-38J is under 7 min to 20,000ft. If you check P-38J Performance Test you will find that a P-38J-10 could do it in 5min 37sec, WEP power. They have tests on later marks to.

The P-63 was what the P-39 needed to be and was before the AAF striped the turbo out.

wmaxt

[Jank]

Wmaxt said, "The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference."

The "real difference" was the rate of occurrence and it was a big difference for the pre-"J" models. The problems with the P-38, prior to their being ironed out, were quite common. A P-38 mechanic once told me that it was easier to keep a B-17 up and running than a P-38. I didn't ask him which P-38 model he was referring to but I assume it was a pre-"J" model.

Incidents where the P-51's lost their tail, while it did happen, were actually a rare occurrence. Obviously, loosing tails during combat manuevers are stories that spread quickly, far and wide among pilots. If anything, losing a tail is a story with dramatic, sensational value unlike a mechnical problem that grounds a P-38 or causes it to turn back during a mission.

What issues are you referring to with the P-47? I am aware that there were serious mechanical teething problems with the "M" model but no other problems that would be considered significant with the P-47's. It was really considered a rock of reliability.

The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51 and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice.

[syscom3]

The P38's were hard to maintain because their origional design reflected a production rate of less than a hundred planes. Since Lockheed had no expectation that it would be a mass produced airplane, they were essentially designed to be hand built.

The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly.

Now of course the pilots in the SW Pacific never thought they were flying in an inferior plane and always loved it.

[Jank]

"The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly."

The Report of Joint Fighter Conference, October 1944 has a contrary position. To be frank, I have seen no other opinions or evaluations on the matter. Perhaps you could point me to a source that states differently.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Jank

"The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly."

The Report of Joint Fighter Conference, October 1944 has a contrary position. To be frank, I have seen no other opinions or evaluations on the matter. Perhaps you could point me to a source that states differently.

Tony Levier had to fly to the ETO to teach the pilots how to operate the plane with one engine out. Once he showed them how to do it, the issues of how complex the plane was to fly began to fall by the wayside.

The 8th and 9th AF always seemed to have problems with the P38 that the other commands didnt.

At Chino 2004, I had the opportunity to speak to a 475th FG pilot who told me (and the others who stopped to listen in) that the -38 WAS the fighter to have in the PTO, and it was no more tough a plane to master than any other twin engined plane. It was all about training. Once you knew what you were doing, then it all fell into place.

[Jank]

"...it was no more tough a plane to master than any other twin engined plane."

Perhaps that explains it. The P-51 isn't a twin engined plane.

To reiterate, I said, "The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51 and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice."

[delcyros]

It seems, that the P-38 was hot in every role it had to fullfill:
Escort, ground attack, interceptions, dogfighting, recon.
Assume the US would have concentrated on the P-38 and no P-47/P-51 would reach maturity. How many P-38 could have been produced instaed of Thuds and Stangs?