Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed

[plan_D]

And we don't know if it was a Fw-190D-9 the P-38 was flying against. You're absolutely right, les, the P-38 pilot always had to be the best in any combat to get the most out of his aircraft.

The P-38 was a plane for the experts, and no air force is made up of experts. They're mostly rookies ... no matter what they tell you.

[wmaxt]

I think thats true to an extent, in the hands of someone like Bong it was just about unbeatable but pilots like that were few and far between. However as the traning accident rates showes the P-38 wasn't hard to fly, in '45 its accident rate was
P-38 186 per100,000 flying hours
P-51 317 per 100,000 Flying hours
P-47 682 per 100,000 flying hours
P-40 421 per 100,000 flying hours
Thats almost Half the losses over the P-51 that is so much easier to fly, and 3 1/2 times better than the P-47.

The P-38 did very well everywhere but the ETO, including the Aleutians where there were no adverse problems due to heat (though this was a real weakness) or engines and the temps were often -50 on the ground, why? Because it was supported by the AAF comands and the Fighter Groups and the pilots. Things like tactics and differential throttle usage, proper cruise techniques, etc. were commonly taught to new pilots

In the ETO it was not supported - even Dollittle admits that - but it still did the job. As to harder to fly, yes, a little but lets look at a couple of fighter groups and how they handled the P-38. First the 20th FG. The Co of the 20th was a P-40 man and was convinced that a twin engined fighter was useless and said so to his pilots. Until LeViers demo flights they all had a very low morale and were convinced the P-38 was only good for suicide. They made no recorded attempts to learn/maximise their useage of the P-38s. Many groups and squadrons held ground schools in tactics etc. By late summer '44 it was normal for a P-51 pilot to go through 50hrs ETO training before going into combat the first time. Their score 78 P-38s for 74 Germans and an early transition to P-51s. The 82nd FG embraced the P-38 tried new things and had a score of 230 P-38s to 586 German/Italian aircraft. Of the P-38 losses 50 were accidents and collisions, and about half of the remainder from ground fire. These guys had missions like bombing Ploesti among others.

The P-38 was a little more complex but a competant pilot with a little training of P-38 capabilities was a very effective aircraft that did not require a wizard to fly well.

Edited to clarify accidents were per 100,000 flying hours.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

Don't you think that accident rate is a bit bias? How many P-38s were operating compared to P-51s in the ETO?

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Don't you think that accident rate is a bit bias? How many P-38s were operating compared to P-51s in the ETO?

The accident rate is for the training in the US proper and the AAF Training command as a whole, and is based on the number of accidents per 100,000 flying hours. I can't think of a way to make them more equaly representitive. Training here in the states was pretty consistent, my mom used to watch the P-38s and P-51s train together, here at Mountain Home AFB during the war. Same base, same weather, same time - can it be more equal?

Source AAF Stastistical Digest

To be sure I don't think the P-38s were unsupported on purpose but it wasn't in the best interests of people like Eaker, and Spatz, and Arnold who had supported non escorted bombers to the point that the whole AAF was built that way. Then it was conclusively proven that an escort was mandatory - worse they had a plane that could do it but they sent it to Africa.

Did you know the fuel problem the early P-38s had was not fixed until the P-51s were having blown headgaskets and severly fouled plugs causing a 30% abort rate in Jan/Feb '44?

wmaxt

[Twitch]

PS- Just looking at the list and realize most on it are not worth a hoot at the upper end of the altitude range 35,000 feet. They are barely airworthy much less able to fight.

[lesofprimus]

Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....

You are right there Les. With all of the Allied Fightbombers and ground attack planes from the West and East all closing in on Germany, LW had alot of chances to fight at lower levels as well. Of course when LW intercepted Allied bombers they were way up high, but other than that there was still combat going on well below. Even when Allies attacked German airbases LW would get into fights there to, protecting their own bases as well as ME262 bases.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Your thoughts have merrit a hit and run from a higher altitude is not only the best method in all reality it was the most effective.

I will stand on my earlier post - the P-38 on its dogfighting ability deserves to be with the 190 and Spit. The P-38 was also one of the very best when it came to climb, altitude ability (Js and Ls still had full power at 30k where the Spit/190/P-51 had lost as much as half), and speed. Also as I pointed out above even Galland himself in a 190D couldn't shake a P-38. The P-38 was at least a match.

As to the P-51, the P-38 not only could out fly it, a quote from a P-51 pilot to his nephew was 'to fight one (P-38 ) you (P-51) had to start out a lot faster and higher to have a chance'. Performance wise the comtemporary P-38J-25/Ls
Flew higher - 44,000ft to 40,000ft (Sometimes rated at 41,000ft)
Climed 20% faster 7min to 20,000ft to 9 to 20,000 in METO power
were as fast/slightly faster
Accelerated faster 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft to 2.2mph/sec
Out maneuvered
carried more in Fighter Bomber roll reportedly 5,200lbs (official rating 4,000lbs) to the P-51s 2,000lbs
Heaver firepower that was housed in the center of the aircraft and was effective at twice the range of the P-51.
The longest fighter mission of WWII was by the P-38 at 2,300mi.

The P-51 was cheaper, easier to train in, easier to maintain and had a faster cruise speed if ultimate range was not required. Those are the advantages of the P-51 over the P-38.

wmaxt[/quote]

Was the P-38 that much manuverable than the P-51?

From wikepedia:The Lightning proved surprisingly maneuverable at low altitudes, mostly due to very docile low-speed stall characteristics. The contra-rotating props had the benefit of eliminating the effects of engine torque, and on occasion a Lightning could even out-turn smaller fighters. However, maneuverability wasn't its strong suit, its major virtue in combat being a "terrific zoom climb" that would leave pursuers in the dust.

On ocasion. Also other websites about world war II aircraft seem to confirm that the lighting wasn't really the most manuverable aircraft out there. Sure, in the hands of an expieranced pilot it could outmanuver a single engine plane like the mustang, but not in the hands of an inexperianced fighting pilot. Technichly the mustang was more manuverable. It was at best a match with the mustang for manuverability, but not generally superior.

Besides, several mustang pilots downed FW's in one on one dog fights too just like that one P-38 pilot did. I don't think it was that much harder for them.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

What one pilot had to say about the mustang.

was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The only reason the Mustang was so successful was the fact that it had the numerical superiority. The aircraft itself was overrated and nothing speacial.

[FLYBOYJ]

For the newer members....

I posted this before...

Here is a photo of my old neighbor Mike Alba, courtesy of "Little Friends."



Mike was with the 338th Fighter Squadron, 55th Fighter Group, 8th Ar Force. He flew P-38s and P-51s in combat. Prior to going over seas Mike logged several hundred hours in the P-38 so he had a good handle on the idiosyncrasies of the aircraft. During his time in Europe Mike told me he actually preferred the P-38. He did confirm the heating problems but said the -38 was a better gun platform and way a way more stable aircraft to fly. He went on to tell me that the P-51 was faster and could be a bit "squirly." He first flew converted P-51Cs that didn't have the fin in front of the vertical stabilizer. He said when the "Ds" arrived there was an improvement.

Mike mentioned that when the 8AF fighter command started going on the deck to hunt down the Luftwaffe on the ground he lost half of his squadron and he sited the P-51 went down easy because of its liquid cooled engine. Mike went on to say that at that time many of his surviving squadron members wished they still had their P-38s....

As a side note, Mike finished the war with 3 1/2 kills, all in the P-51. He stayed in the AF after WW2 and assisted many Central and South American Air Forces in setting up combat training schools, Mike was Mexican and spoke Spanish fluently. Mike spent several years in Honduras and trained a guy named Fernando Soto - this guy became the "Top Gun" of the 1969 El Salvador/ Honduras "Soccer War."

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

But for the Lightning being a faster plane also makes me wonder. On wikipedia they say the P-51 had a maximum speed of 437 mph and the P-38 had one of 414 mph. Unless I'm mistaken the Lighting didn't beat it in speed. Also it sounds like the P-51 could only fly a 100 miles less.

[cheddar cheese]

With WEP P-38L's could do over 440mph.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I like the lightning. I just wasn't that sure if it was superior to the P-51 in taking down a WF 190. I know it did great with the Japanese planes. I'm sure it could do it well and in a head on fight the P-38 had more powerful guns to wipe you out. It's just I still kind of wonder how much more maneuverable in a dogfight it was.

Anyway, here is the story of one on one dogfight of a P-51. I wish I had it in the pilots own words.

A flight of P-51s from the 353rd Fighter Squadron, operating out of Criqueville, France, was patrolling the skies over Berriere on 29 June, 1944. Newcomer 1st Lt. Kenneth Dahlberg was flying "Beantown Banshee", a P-51B "borrowed" from another 353rd pilot. Shortly after 1400 hours, they encountered a large number of yellow-nosed Focke-Wulf 190s. As the two formations meshed into one swirling mass of Mustangs and Focke-Wulfs, a '190 curved in on the tail of Dahlberg's flight leader. Dahlberg slid in behind the black-crossed figher and fired a burst that caused the German to break off. Dahlberg stayed with his opponent in a twisting, turning combat, each trying to maneuver into a position to get a hit as they spiralled down to almost treetop level. Finally Dahlberg scored a crucial burst and the Focke-Wulf dove into the ground. Lt. Dahlberg later described the German pilot as "my most formidable air opponent of the war".

The German pilot may have come from the excellent fighter Unit JG 26.


Another reason the P-38 wasn't liked as well in Europe as a bomber escort is this from wikipedia:

A growing need for long-range escort fighters in Northwest Europe to protect heavy bomber operations resulted in four groups of Lightnings being deployed to the 8th Air Force in 1943-44. Although the P-38 gained a reputation with the Luftwaffe as the "fork-tailed devil", its performance at frigid high altitudes was disappointing and it proved difficult to maintain. By September 1944 all the Lightning groups in the 8th Air Force had converted to the P-51.