Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so you're saying the P-38 had no problems and that all the most commonly stated problems are just lies?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

so you're saying the P-38 had no problems and that all the most commonly stated problems are just lies?

No, but there were a lot of exaggerations of the P-38's shortcomings, especially in the ETO...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The only real problem I could think of for the P-38 in the ETO would be the poor cockpit heating. BRRRRRR it would be cold this time of year!

[plan_D]

It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time.


The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ill agree with that.

[Gnomey]

So will I. It can't be that bad if the top American ace of the war flew one in the Pacific...

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Jesus Villamor, the first filipino ace flew a P-26, does that make them great too?

see, i do pay attention in the other threads

[CurzonDax]

Great for its time. Not by '41. Its the same for the P-38 or the Lanc, is it great today, no. But back in its day they were hi-tech. Even the P-26 is great today as a piece of history not a front line plane.

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time.


The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.

Perfect!

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Perfect!

I think Plan is very close but It wasn't that hard to fly if you had someone interested in flying it. And yes there were a couple of planes that under some situations were better dogfighters, there weren't many. All planes had their limitations including the P-38, but very few had as wide a range of abilities much less the competency of those various capabilities.

One of the things that is little known about the P-38 was the attitude that some COs had. The CO of the 20th FG (8th AF) hated the P-38 simply because it wasn't a P-40 or single engined. They never operated the P-38 effectively or even tried to develope tactics for it. They didn't like it over 20,000ft where in their words "it was only as good as the German fighters" due to the altitude (the power did drop considerably at altitude in the early P-38 because of the intercooler situation). They still thought it was the best plane under 20,000ft.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

The P-38 was a hard aircraft to fly simply because of the twin-engine layout. Single engined aircraft are much easier to fly. And it's well known that P-38 trainees had a hard time with the P-38, and even more so the first-time combat drivers were almost always in a difficult position because the P-38 took much more training which the USAAF did not give.

It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The P-38 was a hard aircraft to fly simply because of the twin-engine layout. Single engined aircraft are much easier to fly. And it's well known that P-38 trainees had a hard time with the P-38, and even more so the first-time combat drivers were almost always in a difficult position because the P-38 took much more training which the USAAF did not give.

It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.

D's hitting the nail on the head, I've rambled about training in multi engine aircraft and practicing engine out procedures - the #1 killer of multi engine pilots.

I've recently learned that when you had an engine out in a P-38 you actually REDUCED power on the good engine, but to the point where you still maintained what is called Vmc, the minimum control airspeed with the critical engine inoperative, or in airplanes with counter rotating propellers, one engine inoperative (OEI). If you maintain an airspeed above Vmc, you should theoretically have enough rudder power to counteract any engine-out yawing and rolling. At the same time, regardless of horsepower, A piston twin with one operative engine doesn't lose half its climb capability — it loses about 80 percent! Too much power on one engine in the P-38 and you torque roll, flip and die, too little power and you don't climb or exceed Vmc, stall and die.

Now with all this aside, if you have the right pilot trained, he's a formidable opponent riding on a survivability insurance policy...

[evangilder]

Yep, that is true. I have interviewed a P-38 pilot that said that if he had an engine out in his first 20 hours or so, he probably would not be there talking to me. There was basically no training for the P-38, just a quick orientation while squatting down behind the pilot in the radio area. He went from P-39s to the P-38. After the orientation, they gave him a plane and left him to his own devices.

[CurzonDax]

This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. It was at one time considered the worse aircraft in the US inventory but once the pilots were well trained it became, arguably, the best medium bomber the US had. I say arguably because I am still a Mitchell fan. Point is that many a great plane started out as a piece of buffalo chip.

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. :{)

Engine Management system?!? Explain that one????