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

[syscom3]

I'd agree about the P38 being the superior plane in the PTO. Those twin engine saved many a pilot.

The P47N and P51H might have been superior to the Lightning, untill their engine (and/or radiator on the P51) was damaged and they were 700 miles from base.

[HealzDevo]

I might have accidently added a few too many zeros but still the point stands that a cannon is able to shoot further most of the time and do more damage. The P-51 was armed with in-wing machine guns. Therefore it didn't really work for its purpose.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Ive never heard about the P38 being hard to fly

you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........

It actually wasn't - the problem was during WW2 comprehensive multi engine aircraft training only went to bomber pilots, especially early in the war...

The P-38 was actually simple to fly as far as multi engine aircraft go - it had no "critical engine" which meant if you knew what you were doing, engine out procedure on take off were relatively easy....

[syscom3]

Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.

Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.

Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.

Great info Sys!

The big "killers" on the P-38 were engine out take off and landings (Especially the take offs) which are killers on any twin. Additionally many green P-38 drivers would get their aircraft in termanl dives and never pull out becuase of compressibility, especially on early P-38 models. I'm convinced becuase of this lockheed and the AAF always "lowballed" the P-38's top speed....

[wmaxt]

A few excerpts from a AAF tactical test of the P-38F compared with P-40F, P-51, P-47C, and P-39D.

Flight testing @ Eglin Field, Florida. Tactical suitability of the P-38F. 6 March 1943.

For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and firepower, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station.

The P-38F is very hard to stall power on and will fly until almost vertical.

Turn is slightly inferior below 10,000ft, equal from 10,000ft to 15,000ft and superior above 15,000ft.

The test report also has many criticisms of the P-38, including intercooler capacity, cockpit heat, dive speed/controllability, etc. The report is at
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p...actical-trials. The forum keeps truncating the site, go to spitfire.com and check the bottom P-38 performance page and you will find this report.

As for difficulty flying the P-38 had one of the best accident rates in '45, 58% of P-51 accident rate and only 26% of P-47 accident rate, after training on effective engine out procedures was implemented.

The P-38J-25/L models had no maneuvering restrictions.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.

First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.

Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.

First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.

Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.

Those are important points, there were a lot of prejudice and rumor about the P-38 in the ETO. I think that was the primary problem with the P-38 in Europe.

Mr Saki, and Stienhoff both made the point that one aspect of the P-38 that they hated was its ability to show up anywhere or anytime and still have the advantages.

wmaxt

[lesofprimus]

No matter how good a combat pilot is, or how well he can fly his specific crate, combatting with dual engines is way more difficult than a single engine... There were 2 handfuls of guys that flew the -38 with the balls required to make it a superior combat aircraft.... A large % of P-38's were easy pickings for the German Aces in the ETO....

[syscom3]

I wouldnt say "easy pickings" as the P38's shot down quite a few german fighters themselves.

I would say though that the FW190 was the superior to the P38, with the -109 equal.

Of course if the P38 (with dive brakes) refuses to get into a maneuvering fight and attacks with dive and zoom tactics, then theyre going to be successfull.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

No matter how good a combat pilot is, or how well he can fly his specific crate, combatting with dual engines is way more difficult than a single engine... There were 2 handfuls of guys that flew the -38 with the balls required to make it a superior combat aircraft.... A large % of P-38's were easy pickings for the German Aces in the ETO....

Actually only 451 P-38s were lost to ALL causes by the 8th AF (90% of all aerial encounters with German aircraft). The remainder were lost on Ground Attack missions (something less than 1,300, which also includes losses to all causes including accidents and PR missions). The loss rate was 4 German fighters for every P-38 lost in air to air combat in the ETO. It was 5:1 in the MTO. There are also many recorded instances where the German fighters bypassed bomber groups escorted by P-38s.

Stienhoff made an issue to Galland that the P-38s were superior in speed and maneuverability to his aircraft over Sicily/Sardinia (reference: Stienhoff's book "Messershmitts over Sicily".

This is in spite of the fact that the German pilots had both the experience and numbers up to 5 German fighters for every P-38 fielded in '43 and early '44.

The twin engines had some advantages to, if used properly like they did in the Pacific.

wmaxt

[HealzDevo]

As I said consider this, the Germans must have considered the aircraft potentially deadly to pilots to be bothered to caputre it and paint it in their colours so that it could be used for training demonstrations, etc. Both the Mustang and the P-38 Lightning were captured in different marks and used by the Luftwaffe for training. I would suggest that this training could have led to losses in some of the encounters as the enemy pilot may have been aware in his mind of the capabilities of his opponent. It is unknown though, how wide-spread this training may have been in the Luftwaffe. As Sun Tzu said, 'Know Your Enemy' and the Germans certainly made an attempt to carry out this tactical saying.

[plan_D]

The fact that Germany captured the Lightning, or the Mustang for that matter, make no point on either aircraft's effectiveness. The Luftwaffe would have taken any oppurtunity to take an Allied or Soviet machine to test it. You never pass up something like that.

Every nation took every oppurtunity to capture the opponents machines.

[syscom3]

We did that to the Zero fighter, and learned a lot.