P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

[MAV_406]

I SAY P-38 BECAUSE IT TOOK ON THE ZERO WITH ALOT OF SUCCSES

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-51 would have taken on the Zero with the same successes. The Zero was not as good as everyone thinks it was. I am not discrediting the Zero because it was a fine aircraft but more of a myth than what it is made out to be.

Having said that I too think the P-38 was a better fighter but P-51 does have a lot of advantages too. The P-51 was easier for a newer pilot to fly for the most part.

However the P-51 would have slaughtered the Zero as well. I would go as far as saying that most of the modern (WW2 era modern that is) were better overall than the Zero to include the Fw-190, Ta-152, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc. The Zero had good range though.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The P-51 would have taken on the Zero with the same successes. The Zero was not as good as everyone thinks it was. I am not discrediting the Zero because it was a fine aircraft but more of a myth than what it is made out to be.

Having said that I too think the P-38 was a better fighter but P-51 does have a lot of advantages too. The P-51 was easier for a newer pilot to fly for the most part.

However the P-51 would have slaughtered the Zero as well. I would go as far as saying that most of the modern (WW2 era modern that is) were better overall than the Zero to include the Fw-190, Ta-152, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc. The Zero had good range though.

I agree 110% Chris, but the Zero did fill their needs for a long range carrier based fighter. Not all other modern fighters filled that role. I am not saying by anymeans that the Zero was as good or better than any of the planes you listed but they all could not full fill the role that the Japanese needed. Not to mention the Zero was being used in 1940 for the first time.

The Zero allowed the Japanese to do or wage war where it could not with a short range fighter. But tatics quickly developed by the allies over came the Zero, plus better planes, better trained pilots, all meant the death of the Zero. It was a "good" plane for the role it was developed for at the time it was developed, but nothing more. Poor armor, poor guns, no self sealing tanks, no radios, poor high speed performance.

It could not fight evenly vs the planes you listed I agree. It was out matched and should of been replaced in 1942 at the latest.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I completely agree. I was only stating that if that was the reasons why the P-38 was considered the best that there were other aircraft that would have scored the same successes. I agree with you though.

[comiso90]

The P-38 definately had advantages but as always, my money is on the pilot not the plane. Take an "average" pilot on a high altitude bomber escort mission and I'll bet on the P-51.

I've read a ton of unflatering things about the p-38. Here is an example from Wiki:

>> Although the P-38 had gained an enviable reputation in North Africa as the "fork-tailed devil," the P-38 did not have as much success over Germany. In this northern climate, it was an "ice-box" on high-altitude missions, and it was out-performed by the Fw 190 and the later marks of the Bf 109. The main reason for the P-38's relative failure in high-altitude operations in the European Theatre was due to engine failures experienced above 20,000 feet. Frequent engine failures were attributed to failing spark plugs and other parts that could not use the European, rain-drenched fuel. Many of the aircraft problems were addressed by the P-38J variant, but by September 1944, all the Lightning groups in the 8th Air Force had converted to the P-51. The Eighth did continue to operate the F-5 recon variants with more success.

The P-38's service record shows mixed results. On the negative side, most variants were certainly harder to fly than the best single-engine fighters and in early models, pilots suffered badly from the cold in northern climates. Also, the twin turbocharged Allisons had problems – a good portion of Lightnings were lost during the war due to engine difficulties rather than by enemy gunfire, which contributed to the plane's relatively low kill-ratio. Up until the "J-25" variant, P-38s were often "sitting ducks" to Luftwaffe fighters because of the problematic engines and the lack of dive flaps to counter compressibility in dives. German fighter pilots would often go into steep dives because they knew that the Lightnings would be reluctant to follow.<<

Once they changed the engine on the Mustang, it was a terror.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Fork Tailed Devil is actually just a myth. That was discussed here a while ago. It is true that a soldier may have said it in N. Africa but that was just his personal opinion. The Germans never actaully nick named the aircraft the Fork Tailed Devil.

[renrich]

In Europe, the P38 had 129,849 sorties for 1758 losses or one loss for every 74 sorties. The P51 flew 213,873 sorties for 2520 losses or one loss every 85 sorties. (the P47 was superior to both in that matter) Some of the reasons for the P38 problems were, as mentioned by other members, engine problems caused by high altitude operations, poor cockpit heating, early P38s had a generator on only one engine so if that engine failed you had to come home on only a battery, the airplane was large and easy to see and identify(an advantage on D-Day), it was a big target and had a lot of critical parts to be hit by enemy fire, it had a very poor initial roll rate,( you can't turn if you can't roll), it's compressibility problems were aggravated because the air temperatures above Europe are colder than in the Pacific or California,(the speed of sound varies only with air temperature) so the pilots could not dive the airplane from high altitudes until it got dive brakes, the pilot work load was high because of twin engines and because of poor cockpit layout,( the fighter conference in 1944 voted the P38L as having the worst cockpit), it was a difficult air plane to maintain. Some pilots said that the P38 had to have two engines so it could come home on one. In the Pacific, the P38 came into it's own(more or less) because of warmer air temperatures and less high altitude fighting and because it's long range was useful in the great distances of the Pacific war. It could wrap up in tight slow speed turns in the hands of an experienced pilot by the use of it's Fowler flaps and because of the contra rotating props taking away the torque problems of a single engined fighter. However Tommy McGuire killed himself maneuvering that way against a Japanese fighter. Energy tactics were really the P38s forte. There were situations in the CBI when the P38 was not appreciated because it used a lot of fuel and every drop of fuel at certain airstrips had to be flown in. The P51 was superior when fuel shortages and primitive maintenance conditions were the norm. On balance it would seem that the P51 was the superior fighter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Ya know it's funny, with all the ETO talk of the poor heating of the P-38, the aircraft was operated in the Aleutians - never heard much of those guys complaining of the heater.

[davparlr]

I think that in the hands of an expert pilot, the P-38 was a formidable fighter. In the hands of a less than expert pilot, the P-51 was a fomidable fighter. That is the difference. Also, the provable top speed of the P-38 was not up to par with the P-51 and late-war piston powered German aircraft.

The P-51 was the best selection for long range fighter escort and long range air-to-ground interdiction.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree Dave. I like the P-38 better than the P-51 but as you say the P-51 was easier for a novice pilot to fly.

[renrich]

The cockpit heater problems were solved by the time the P38 served in the Aleutians and it was said that the P38 was a shirt sleeve airplane there.

[Hollywood]

Far too many issues for a clear cut "winner" between the two aircraft.....
Adolf Galland said the P-38's were "no problem" in air to air combat, whereas the P-51's gave him the biggest headaches. Personally, I like the P-38 because so many people seem to promote the P-51 as the "best" and outside of roll rate I just don't think it was a BETTER aircraft, simpler and easier to maintain OK, but BETTER?

[HealzDevo]

Is that because they solved the problem of a heater that didn't work by transferring the plane to a hotter climate?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by renrich

The cockpit heater problems were solved by the time the P38 served in the Aleutians and it was said that the P38 was a shirt sleeve airplane there.

Was it? There were P-38s in the Aleutians in 1942 - 43, and they were flying P-38Es.

[HealzDevo]

That was the question I'm asking, whether it was transferred there to solve the problems by the climate being warmer...