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

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by JohnnyL

The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.

The P38 did have some unique visibility problems. I would have to say that the rearward visibility was horrible due to the booms. The P47 and P51 definatley had better visibility (all around)

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.

Some early P51's in the ETO were shot down by mistake simply because it looked like a -109. The P38's shape is very unique and visible even at great distances. All the other aircraft look alike from afar.

The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?

We did have a thread comparing the P38 to the Corsair and it seems they were quite similar. When the P38 is compared to the Hellcat, Mustang and Thunderbolt for PTO condintions ONLY, its the superior of the bunch.

It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.

At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.

What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?

And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.

Agree

Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.

The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.

[JohnnyL]

Originally Posted by syscom3

At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.

See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.

The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.

I was unclear in my statement. I meant that the dive brakes were added to the lightning design in early 1943, and mass production of that model began in mid-1943.

And I surmise that U.S. planes had the worst compressibility troubles because we tended to design these big, heavy iron-works designs that would dive like frat boys when the fat chicks walk in.

So far, the only real disadvantages that anyone has pointed out to me are the visibility, and possibly the profile.

[JohnnyL]

"...[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first five to ten degrees of bank." -- Franz Steigler, JG 27, 28 victories.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JohnnyL

See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.

P-38 pilots didn't normally use "Differential Throttle Control" because back in that day (the early part of WW2) there were no firmly established procedures for flying twin engine aircraft, not only in combat but under normal operations and the P-38 did not have a "critical engine" because of its propellers turning int he opposite direction. Several PTO pilots picked up on using differential throttle control in combat but for the most part they were far and few, probably the more experienced P-38 drivers, and did not advertise doing this on a grand scale as it was contrary to all normal P-38 combat procedures. If you read some of the information in "Twelve to One" Twelve to One nothing is mentioned about differential throttle control in any area of operation.

[lesofprimus]

Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...

U understand???

[JohnnyL]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...

U understand???

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms...

I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

[syscom3]

Well the P38 DID look cool.

According to Kelly Johnson at a 1977 P38 symposium, here are 15 bad points about the P38. (I will post his 15 good points tomorrow)

1 Engine problems including backfiring that damaged the wing intercooler

2 Wing intercooler was good for 1000HP, but not enough cooling for higher power.

3 Compressibility in the mach .68 to .7 range due to wing shape (among others)

4 Insufficent cockpit heat

5 High aileron forces untill power boost

6 Tail clearance for pilot bail out

7 Engine accesibility in the booms was poor. And the eqmt in the booms was crowded

8 Sun heat effect on Curtiss propellor circuits

9 Turbosupercharger over revving

10 Difficulty in using a turbine hood to get exhaust thrust. The supercharger wouldnt take any back pressure

11 Two different types of engines due to the desire for contra rotating propellors

12 Insufficent rear vision

13 Difficult pilot entrance and exit provisions

14 Hard to build!!!!

15 Sensitivity of the wing fillets ..... difficult to maintain

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

[lesofprimus]

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.

U really wanna get in a pissing match with me boy-toy???

I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

Did I hurt ur whittle feelings there??? Awww, Im sorry, why dont u go get a box of tissues... Pussies like u make me sick.... Grow a set of balls and act like a man, not some some sissy-@ss girl whose feelings are soooo very important to the ways of the cyber galaxy....

For the record, I am rude.... And antagonistic, egotisical, short tempered, and above all else, an @sshole.... And Im also a Moderator, which means I have the ability to control this argument... U can either go with the flow here, grow a few extra layers of skin, and watch ur fu*kin mouth to the more senior people around here, or have me slam ur @ss into next Tuesday.... Im not the Moderator u wanna pick a fight with pal....

Trust me...

[Chief]

Originally Posted by JohnnyL

I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.



I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.

JohnnyL
I understand completely. I'm exactly the same way. However, getting kicked out of here is not the way to do it. You have to learn to pick you fights buddy.

Les can be a jerk, but he does work on this site so he has earned that right. And I'm sorry, but if you don't like. Well than you're gonna have to live with it and if you don't well than don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

Agreed 100%

[FLYBOYJ]

Cheif, you're learning!

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

Agreed 100% Chris,

Like we have said before an airforce is built around your average pilot in your airforce, not a few aces. Germany knows this well, they had perhaps the most experienced core of aces on the planet in WW2 and the world will never see another group of aces (that many) like that again. But still they lost. One by one even those elite aces cannot not take down the hordes without being picked off one by one. So many German aces died when the war was already lost, it was a shame.

My point being that the USAF needed a plane to do the job at hand. The plane needed to be long range, competitive in a dogfight, easy enough and cheap enough to make, but just as important as all that it needed to be easy enough to fly by your "average" pilot. Your average pilots needed to be able to fly this plane and be competitive (in a fight) when it reached the target, that was the P-51.

[wmaxt]

Adler, that's a great way of putting it!

Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
2) Wing Intercooler
3) Compressability (any model could stay out of compressibility if throttles were closed and prop to flat pitch). J-25s and Ls had slats for compressibility ~5,000 planes.
4) insufficient Cockpit heat true but corrected in J-25s and Ls.
5) Aileron forces J-25 on corrected this.

There were almost 7,000 P-38J/L models so those limitations only applied to ~25% of the planes. I know you are fully aware of these but I thought that others might want to see the counterpoint to.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Adler, that's a great way of putting it!

Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
2) Wing Intercooler
3) Compressability (any model could stay out of compressibility if throttles were closed and prop to flat pitch). J-25s and Ls had slats for compressibility ~5,000 planes.
4) insufficient Cockpit heat true but corrected in J-25s and Ls.
5) Aileron forces J-25 on corrected this.

There were almost 7,000 P-38J/L models so those limitations only applied to ~25% of the planes. I know you are fully aware of these but I thought that others might want to see the counterpoint to.

wmaxt

Unfortunatly, these problems existed on the planes that made the first impression on the AAF and pilots.

By the time they were corrected, the P51's were available in quantity and it didnt have a fraction of those problems.

By middle 1944, it was also obvious that the P38 airframe was a dead end design and the P51's still had potential to evolve.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

The majority of that stat is primarily in the winter/spring '43/'44 when the P-38 was doing escort primary job. Not only did it include 109's and 190s the percentage of the experienced "Old Hand" German pilots but they were flying with 5:1 odds in the German pilots favor. The first three months there were less than 100 escorts on some missions.

The 82nd FG has a great web page that details both losses and kills by pilot name, date and aircraft shot down. They indicate a very wide range of aircraft up to Me-262s Though most of those were probables because they were not seen to crash. The site is Official 82nd Fighter Group website .

wmaxt