MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Dinniss, That's why I said "apparent" compression ratio. As far as the engine is concerned its the same thing.
The down side of Turbo-superchargers is space/weight for a separate unit (the turbo) and the associated plumbing for exhaust and compressed air to the engine.
The second thing is that it takes pilots that understand how to use the flexibility of the turbo's capability.The P-38 suffered tremendously over northern Europe because pilots wer using poor techniques in engine management. High RPM and low MAP resulted in high fuel consumption and cold engines and turbochargers, when they went to full power the cold oil would not lubricate the engines/turbochargers (the turbo's have their own oil supply) and they failed.
Also an important point the P-38 mixture had two settings Auto Lean and Auto Rich. Auto Lean is used up to 2300RPM and Auto Rich above that. The extra mixture setting gave the P-38 pilot the added flexibility to get both power and fuel economy. However if the throttle was maxed and the prop set to max power before the mixture was set to Auto Rich the engine would detonate and explode!
And you have hit on the "secret" to making the P-38 the weapon it could be. The technology was one thing, but training was another. The pilots that were properly trained made the Lightning the aircraft it should be. I think the turbosupercharged engine, particularly in the P-38, was the escort fighter. The P-51 was economicaly the better answer but I feel the Lightning once fully developed with properly trained pilots was the better aircraft.