P-38, 2nd best US plane? - Page 4

brndirt1 · #76 (**permalink**) September 28th, 2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

Different sources I guess give different info,,,,
About the P-38

the P-38 assocition which was quoted by a poster says the P-38J entered production in June of 1944 BUT Francis Dean's " America's 100,000" states in went into production in the fall of '43, your link shows that one P-38H group converted to the "J" model around November/December 1943 and Joe Christy's/Jeff Ethel's "P-38 Lightning At War" on page 142 has a very detailed production analysis showing how many of each production run along with time period they were produced with the "J" going into production in fall of '43.

So who's right?????

Now on flying those missions Frances Dean quotes as follows..

" On 1/31/44: "It is decided to have 4 P-38 GRoups in the 8th AF & 3 in the (th AF. The 9th has no P-38s at this time."

2/4/1944: "nearly half of the 20 th & 55th FG's P-38's on escort need to abort with powerplant problems due to severe cold weather. "P-38's now limit operation to 30,000' because of potential powerplant problems ,leaving enemy aircraft the chance to dive at them from 35,000'".

Limited to just 30,000' ??????.

On 3/3/44 it states that P-38's from the 55th FG reach Berlin but the bombers turned back at Hamburg but it does bring up the cold cockpit issue.

Different sources, etc., well said. The Joe Baugher page has these, among others in the bibliography:

Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987

The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.

War Planes of the Second World War; Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.

The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.

United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

See:

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

I guess it is a matter of take yer pick as to which to believe or quote.

redcoat · #77 (**permalink**) September 28th, 2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

The P-38's flew in the Aleutions at high alt's and didn't have the problems they did in the ETO and weather there is far worse then in Europe.

They were not providing escort to high altitude bomber formations in that theater, so they didn't have to travel long distances at high altitude when fighting the Japanese in the Aleutions. I've also read that Japanese aircraft very rarely flew much above 20,000ft on operations. These factors would explain why the P-38 didn't have the problems there as it had in Northern Europe.

Quote:

Has anybody thought that maybe improperly blended fuel caused the P-38's problems in the ETO?

It possibly caused some of the problems if this fuel was indeed used (which appears to be in doubt), but the repositioning of the intercoolers on the J model which lead to low oil temperatures was a recognised cause of at least some of the engine failures.

Quote:

Redcoat,
Notice I said "Late J models" when I said later models solved most of the problems. Several other P-38 books seem to say this also and none of them mention problems with dive brakes. Maybe the 8th. airforce had maintenance problems that other airforces didn't? One aircraft having to have it's dive brakes fixed 9 times ? Is that a sympton over the whole 8th AF or maybe just one squadron? Just wanted to ask since you have that book of Freeman's.

Maybe the 'late' J models were just too late for the 8th Air Force, as the late J model with dive brakes didn't reach the UK until the summer of 1944, and if I am reading Mr Freemans book correctly, only two P-38J's with these dive brakes saw service with the 479th FG from August 1944, which by then was the last FG in the 8th Air Force using the P-38.

ps; from the web-site which Brdirt1 posted http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_13.html it appears that only the last 210 of a production run of approximately 2620 standard J model P-38's were fitted with the electrically operated dive brakes.

redcoat · #78 (**permalink**) September 28th, 2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

Different sources I guess give different info,,,,
About the P-38

the P-38 assocition which was quoted by a poster says the P-38J entered production in June of 1944 BUT Francis Dean's " America's 100,000" states in went into production in the fall of '43, your link shows that one P-38H group converted to the "J" model around November/December 1943 and Joe Christy's/Jeff Ethel's "P-38 Lightning At War" on page 142 has a very detailed production analysis showing how many of each production run along with time period they were produced with the "J" going into production in fall of '43.

So who's right?????

.

According to Mr Freeman the first P-38J's arrived in the UK during November 1943, though due to time spent fitting 55 gallon fuel tanks in the wing leading edges, the 20th and 55th FG of the 8th didn't become operational with the type until January 1944.

ickysdad · #79 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

They were not providing escort to high altitude bomber formations in that theater, so they didn't have to travel long distances at high altitude when fighting the Japanese in the Aleutions. I've also read that Japanese aircraft very rarely flew much above 20,000ft on operations. These factors would explain why the P-38 didn't have the problems there as it had in Northern Europe.

COMMENT: Yes but if Japanese aircraft were flying at 20K then USAAF fighter typeswould be flying higher if possible. I'd be willing to bet that 20K over the Aleutions would be far colder then 25K over the ETO furthermore in one of Dean's reports the 8th AF just merely restricted their use at 30K .

It possibly caused some of the problems if this fuel was indeed used (which appears to be in doubt), but the repositioning of the intercoolers on the J model which lead to low oil temperatures was a recognised cause of at least some of the engine failures.

COMMENT: Well the report I posted a link was clearly marked "Top Secret" so some of it may very well have been used without AG commanders,Squadron Commanders or Ground Crew not knowing about it. It seems that even if some of the Allison equipped RAF aircraft got the fuel it wouldn't have been as serious since the P-51A's operated at low to mid altitudes.

Maybe the 'late' J models were just too late for the 8th Air Force, as the late J model with dive brakes didn't reach the UK until the summer of 1944, and if I am reading Mr Freemans book correctly, only two P-38J's with these dive brakes saw service with the 479th FG from August 1944, which by then was the last FG in the 8th Air Force using the P-38.

ps; from the web-site which Brdirt1 posted Lockheed P-38J Lightning it appears that only the last 210 of a production run of approximately 2620 standard J model P-38's were fitted with the electrically operated dive brakes.

COMMENT: Your probably right there.

ickysdad · #80 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 05:11 AM

Something else on the P-38 is what I alluded to earlier in that other aircraft had operational problems(though maybe not quite as bad) but you don't seem to hear about them. Also the dive flaps were retrofitted to most previous "J" models prior to the J-25 and said flaps could have been fitted much sooner then early '44 ,they were ready in early '43.

edit..
According to "P-38 Lightning at War" one group did figure out how to fight with the P-38 at altitude. They basically just moved the inter-cooler door switch up to the control yoke.and ganged that switch with the gun sight.

redcoat · #81 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat
They were not providing escort to high altitude bomber formations in that theater, so they didn't have to travel long distances at high altitude when fighting the Japanese in the Aleutions. I've also read that Japanese aircraft very rarely flew much above 20,000ft on operations. These factors would explain why the P-38 didn't have the problems there as it had in Northern Europe.

COMMENT: Yes but if Japanese aircraft were flying at 20K then USAAF fighter typeswould be flying higher if possible. I'd be willing to bet that 20K over the Aleutions would be far colder then 25K over the ETO furthermore in one of Dean's reports the 8th AF just merely restricted their use at 30K .

Even if the P-38's flew at 25,000ft its still lower than they needed to fly in order to provide escort for the bombers of the 8th Air Force, and they wouldn't need to fly at that height for long periods.
I've also checked on the campaign in the Aleutions and there seems to have been very little air to air combat, as the Japanese had no airfields there, the inital support for their invasion coming from naval aircraft operating from carriers. The P-38's shot down two Japanese seaplanes early on in the campaign, but after that they seemed to have been used mainly in the ground support role.
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians...tians-wwii.htm

Quote:

It possibly caused some of the problems if this fuel was indeed used (which appears to be in doubt), but the repositioning of the intercoolers on the J model which lead to low oil temperatures was a recognised cause of at least some of the engine failures.

COMMENT: Well the report I posted a link was clearly marked "Top Secret" so some of it may very well have been used without AG commanders,Squadron Commanders or Ground Crew not knowing about it. It seems that even if some of the Allison equipped RAF aircraft got the fuel it wouldn't have been as serious since the P-51A's operated at low to mid altitudes.

I've just read that report in full, and I'm even less convinced that this fuel was the cause of the P-38's problems. The report clearly states that if the fuel was used it would cause spark-plug related problems on Allison engines. However, the sources I have don't show that any of the problems of the P-38J in the 8th AF are related to problems with the spark-plugs, and further more, the problems caused by this 5.5cc blended fuel would not be affected by the height the aircraft flew at.

ickysdad · #82 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

Even if the P-38's flew at 25,000ft its still lower than they needed to fly in order to provide escort for the bombers of the 8th Air Force, and they wouldn't need to fly at that height for long periods.
I've also checked on the campaign in the Aleutions and there seems to have been very little air to air combat, as the Japanese had no airfields there, the inital support for their invasion coming from naval aircraft operating from carriers. The P-38's shot down two Japanese seaplanes early on in the campaign, but after that they seemed to have been used mainly in the ground support role.
WWII History

COMMENTS: Well I was just going by "The P-38 Lightning at War" . One question though if it is true that the P-38 had problems flying at altitude over Europe(which it definately had) ,in those long range escort missions it was more or less up there at those altitudes for several hours right? In roles more like say the Spitfire,FW 190 or Me 109 it would probably have been Ok right? In other words more like an interceptor or such furthermore it seems if inadequate compared to say the P-51 as a long range fighter ,it certainly was inadequate in the regular fighter role as compared to it's contemporaries right?

I've just read that report in full, and I'm even less convinced that this fuel was the cause of the P-38's problems. The report clearly states that if the fuel was used it would cause spark-plug related problems on Allison engines. However, the sources I have don't show that any of the problems of the P-38J in the 8th AF are related to problems with the spark-plugs, and further more, the problems caused by this 5.5cc blended fuel would not be affected by the height the aircraft flew at.

COMMENT: OK but apparently one group did solve the problem. In fact they wanted to keep their P-38 versus replacing with P-51's.

ickysdad · #83 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 05:09 PM

In what I've uncovered one FG solved alot of the problem just by moving a switch so the pilot could/would remember to close/open the intercooler doors . In other words it seems the P-38 was very complicated to fly comparatively speaking,i.e. one needs more training in operating it. I wonder just how much maybe that entered into the picture of engine failures? One constant theme I keep coming across is one either loved the plane or hated it with absolutely no middle ground it seems.

redcoat · #84 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

COMMENT: OK but apparently one group did solve the problem. In fact they wanted to keep their P-38 versus replacing with P-51's.

Just out of interest, what FG was this ?

Erich · #85 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:17 PM

am assuming the 15th Af as the 9th P-38 units were not offered the P-51 except the Pioneer group the 354thfg which loved the crate (P-51)

ickysdad · #86 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

Just out of interest, what FG was this ?

The 474th. Yes I know they belonged to the 9th AF BUT Colonel Lloyd Wenzel made the statement pertaining to this. it's on page 115 of "P-38 Lightning at war". He also mentions about them petitioning to keep their P-38's versus recieving P-51's.

redcoat · #87 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

COMMENTS: Well I was just going by "The P-38 Lightning at War" . One question though if it is true that the P-38 had problems flying at altitude over Europe(which it definately had) ,in those long range escort missions it was more or less up there at those altitudes for several hours right? In roles more like say the Spitfire,FW 190 or Me 109 it would probably have been Ok right? ?

Outside the role of long range high altitude escort the P-38 does seem to have been an excellent fighter,

Erich · #88 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:32 PM

they were not to receive the P-51 at all according to pilots of the fg. only the 354th fg and then these were taken away from them to be outfitted to the fg's in the 8th, only in February of 45 did they receive new mounts, to hell with the thunderbolts was the cry from the 354th.

let me state in true US Army Airforce bizarro fashion the 9th AF 363rd also had P-51's but as was the case in the 9th at least, this unit became a Tac Recon in September 44 before they could really start scoring in a big way, joining the ranks of the other P-51 TRS units under the 9th AF belt

redcoat · #89 (**permalink**) September 29th, 2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ickysdad

The 474th. Yes I know they belonged to the 9th AF BUT Colonel Lloyd Wenzel made the statement pertaining to this. it's on page 115 of "P-38 Lightning at war". He also mentions about them petitioning to keep their P-38's versus recieving P-51's.

The 9th AF was a tactical air force who's primary duty was the support of the Allied ground forces, and in that role their aircraft would tend to operate at a far lower level, and as such I can fully understand why they wouldn't want to transfer to the P-51, with the knowledge how vulnerable the P-51 was to ground fire ( they both had inline engines, but at least the P-38 had two engines)

ickysdad · #90 (**permalink**) September 30th, 2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

The 9th AF was a tactical air force who's primary duty was the support of the Allied ground forces, and in that role their aircraft would tend to operate at a far lower level, and as such I can fully understand why they wouldn't want to transfer to the P-51, with the knowledge how vulnerable the P-51 was to ground fire ( they both had inline engines, but at least the P-38 had two engines)

Oh I know that. I'm just saying ,that from what I've read,the late model J's & L's appeared to have solved the problems of the earlier models. Of course those models never really got to prove it in the long range escort role. That the early models up to the J-15 certainly had engine problems over Europe ,that is absolutely indisputable. The sad thing is it probably could have been prevented.

Triple C · #91 (**permalink**) September 30th, 2009, 05:21 PM

I have got to say, to answer OP's question, the P-47 was at least as strong a contender to the 2d best a/c as the P-38. When attacking ground targets, P-47 strafed in a deeper dive than the P-38 and hit its target accurately. The toughness of the Thunderbolt made it better suited for CAS than the P-38 and it was a better superiority and escort fighter.

ickysdad · #92 (**permalink**) September 30th, 2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple C

I have got to say, to answer OP's question, the P-47 was at least as strong a contender to the 2d best a/c as the P-38. When attacking ground targets, P-47 strafed in a deeper dive than the P-38 and hit its target accurately. The toughness of the Thunderbolt made it better suited for CAS than the P-38 and it was a better superiority and escort fighter.

Good point..Again it's very debatable the P-51 was the best US fighter and maybe even more debatable that the P-38 was 2nd.best. However the US certainly had quite a few first rate models like the P-51,P-38, P-47, F4U ,F6F ,then you have some capable niche planes like the P-39,P-40 and F4F. The US certainly had more capable choices then anybody else it seems.

Bockscar · #93 (**permalink**) October 21st, 2009, 09:12 PM

If my life was on the line and I had to climb into WW2 plane I'd take a P-47 over anything. I'd want the utmost in protection.

surfersami · #94 (**permalink**) October 23rd, 2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bockscar

If my life was on the line and I had to climb into WW2 plane I'd take a P-47 over anything. I'd want the utmost in protection.

Depending on the model I could almost ague the F4u-4 was every bit as good as the P-47. It was just as tough when absorbing damage, was very fast, very manueverable and carried 4000 lb warloads. The P-47 would out dive it, and with 8 .50s it could lay down a lot of lead in a strafing run.
Some of the Corsairs had the 6 .50s armament, some had 4 20mms, either way that is a hard hitting ground attack weapon. Add the fighter capabilities and you have one of the best all round fighters of the war.
I think when you get to the level of these aircraft, the pilot and positioning when the attack starts makes the difference.
Joe Foss did things with an F4F Wildcat a lot of pilots said he shouldn't have been able to do.
My brain hurts just thinking about all the different models and capabilities of the different fighters of WWII. My opinion is a little scewed because I am ex-navy, and I have spoke personally with many WWII and Korean Corsair pilots who wouldn't trade their plains for anything. ( One was a test pilot who flew the P-51, P-47, F6F, F4F, F8, and a few others. He actually chose the F4U-4 over the F8.)
I have never flown any of these, so my choice is purely speculation and armchair comparisons.
Are there any pilots who flew more than one type out there who could help?

redcoat · #95 (**permalink**) October 23rd, 2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfersami

Are there any pilots who flew more than one type out there who could help?

Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown RN is a retired test pilot who holds the record for the most number of aircraft types flown, 487, and this figure doesn't include variants of of the same design. He has written a number of books in which he compares the flying characteristics and abilities of the various WW2 fighters which he has flown.
The best two fighters of WW2 in his view (in terms of if he had to go into combat in) were the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D-9, while the best US fighter was the P-51D, with the best US carrier fighter being the F6F. He is very unhappy with the handling qualities of the F4U especially in regards carrier landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)

Butts · #96 (**permalink**) October 28th, 2009, 06:42 AM

There is no reason the Corsair couldn't have done as good a job as the P51. It had the range to get the job done and was an excellent fighter all round. I would argue that the Corsair is in fact the best US fighter of the war and the P51 is the next best. The radial design is more rugged.

Kobalt04 · #97 (**permalink**) November 2nd, 2009, 02:48 AM

How this for an overgeneralisation of a blanket statement? The Western Allies produced the best warplanes of the War; with few exceptions, the US and UK produced the best bombers, fighter-bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft of any of the major belligerents during World War II. The P-38, P-47, and P-51 were truly great fighters, and particularly so while no German product could come close to a P-51; these aeroplanes would have continued in service well beyond the duration of WWII had it not been for the advent of jet military aircraft. Earlier in the War, the Supermarine Spitfire was an excellent aircraft and a superbly stable gun platform for the eight (8) 0.303-in. Browning m.g.s she used in giving the Bf 109 (which only had 30 minutes' worth of fuel over England) and the various patterns of German bombers a marvellously sound beating over the skies of southern England in 1940. And when Britain and the US returned the serve and started the strategic bombing of German cities and towns, no German night- or dayfighter could match the technological advances of the RAF and USAAF bomber fleets (with improved radar, for example, produced out of the 'battle of the beams'). The British and Americans won air superiority over Germany and German-occupied Europe and with or without their fighter escorts, the Allies' bomber fleets were unstoppable in Germany's skies, no matter how costly to the Western Allies some of these great raids on German cities were.

Slipdigit · #98 (**permalink**) November 2nd, 2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butts

There is no reason the Corsair couldn't have done as good a job as the P51. It had the range to get the job done and was an excellent fighter all round. I would argue that the Corsair is in fact the best US fighter of the war and the P51 is the next best. The radial design is more rugged.

The Corsair certainly stayed in production for a long time.

Op. Watchtower · #99 (**permalink**) November 3rd, 2009, 05:15 AM

I would have to say yes, but only in the Pacific Theater.

Pacific:
Vought F4U Corsair
P38 Lighting

European:
P51 Mustang
P47 Thunderbolt

Butts · #**100** (**permalink**) November 3rd, 2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobalt04

How this for an overgeneralisation of a blanket statement? The Western Allies produced the best warplanes of the War; with few exceptions, the US and UK produced the best bombers, fighter-bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft of any of the major belligerents during World War II. The P-38, P-47, and P-51 were truly great fighters, and particularly so while no German product could come close to a P-51; these aeroplanes would have continued in service well beyond the duration of WWII had it not been for the advent of jet military aircraft. Earlier in the War, the Supermarine Spitfire was an excellent aircraft and a superbly stable gun platform for the eight (8) 0.303-in. Browning m.g.s she used in giving the Bf 109 (which only had 30 minutes' worth of fuel over England) and the various patterns of German bombers a marvellously sound beating over the skies of southern England in 1940. And when Britain and the US returned the serve and started the strategic bombing of German cities and towns, no German night- or dayfighter could match the technological advances of the RAF and USAAF bomber fleets (with improved radar, for example, produced out of the 'battle of the beams'). The British and Americans won air superiority over Germany and German-occupied Europe and with or without their fighter escorts, the Allies' bomber fleets were unstoppable in Germany's skies, no matter how costly to the Western Allies some of these great raids on German cities were.

The German NF force was never actually defeated and they flew intruder missions over the British for the duration of the war. The British never achieve air superiority in the night skies over Germany. It was just to hard and they didn't have enough quality NF's with adequate radar.

The Allies did achieve daytime air superiority over the Germans, but it wasn't easy and it came at a huge cost. The Luftwaffe was no walkover, the FW190, Me109 and JU-88 were superb aircraft that were certainly a match for the US and British planes. It wasn't so much the quality that won the battle for the US and British, but rather the quantity. The Allies could produce an replace far more planes.