Cdn P-38 and Mossies

[Kutscha]

"The weakness of the P38 was that the aircraft often went unserviceable , an awkward situation in the far north where maintainence facilities existed only in the engineers toolbox. They were a rather fragile effeminate type aircraft that needed to be babied and operated from improved airstrips. by improved in those days I mean better then rough gravel , muskeg and dry river beds . The P38 was a beautiful aircraft to fly but not a money maker. The Allison engines were trouble prone .Air ducts kept blowing and the liquid cool system leaked.
The next step up for the company from an economic standpoint and a step down for the pilots for the pilots in discomfort and austerity was the purchase of the fleet of DH Mosquitos .These were high speed long range high performance aircraft that could take a beating."

from Allan MacNutt's book, 'Altimeter Rising, my 50 years in the cockpit'

[GregP]

Boy are you wrong on all accounts.

The P-38 does not often "go unserviceable" any more than other twin engine liquid-cooled aircraft. The Allisons were as reliable as any other high-powered liquid-cooled inline and held a tune longer than a Merlin. They still do that today.

The P-38 gave trouble in Europe at high altitudes, and no one, much less you or I, knows why. Many speculate about the fuel available in Europe, but no definitive answers some 60 years later. They gave very little trouble in the Pacific and their out of service rate was as good as any other twin engine, liquid-cooled aircraft in Alaska and the far North in general.

Far from "efeminate," they shot down more enemy aircraft than any other single US fighter and was the mount of our two top aces. The P-38 was VERY maneuverable and compared well with most single-engine fighters other than the lightly-built Japanese fighters ... against whom the Spitfire was ALSO less maneuverable.

We have a flying P-38 at our museum (Planes of Fame), a P-38J, and it is relaible and wonderful to hear and see fly. Neither it nor our P-40, both of which have Allisons, are unreliable in the slightest. The P-40 is down at this time, but not for the mighty Allison, it is down because of the elevator trim tabs, of all things.

It was the only U.S. fighter in continuous production for the entire war, was the mount of our two best aces, and has many other "firsts" attached to it. Methinks you better check other sources before calling the P-38 anything other than Lightning or "great plane."

[Wuzak]

I wonder if the person Kutscha is quoting had scored a couple of poorly maintaing P-38s for use after the war.

Or if Kutscha is stirring......

I also had a thought last night involving the P-38, and a controversial scenario that we had a couple of years back - namely using the Mosquito as the primary day bomber (instead of B-17s/B-24s).

Direct escort of Mosquito bombers with P-38s might have been difficult, due to cruise speed differences and the effect that would have on one or both of the a/c ranges. But I can't help but think that P-38 and Mosquito may possibly have had a similar radar signature.

Thus, if it didn't cause problems for range, you could mix in P-38s with your Mosquito bombers, and the German ground controllers would not tell the difference.

Or, instead of sending bombers on a diversionary raid, send P-38s in bomber formation to attract the defences, while Mossies headed to target, possibly low level to avoid radar detection.


For what it's worth, Dan Whitney in Vees for Victory suggests that the fuel problem some P-38s experienced was due to the engine intake system, with the conditions created causing the TEL to fall out of solution.

[Kutscha]

Allan MacNutt was commenting about aerial surveying, post war, in the Canadian north.

http://www.yukonbooks.com/shop/customer/product.php?productid=4749#

[kool kitty89]

Judging by that it would apear that the Mosquito they used were better supported post war, which makes sense as they stayed operational longer than the P-38. (and the Mossie didn't have turbochargers to maintain)

The ground handling comments make sense, taildraggers tend to handle better on rough airfilds than tricycle ones. (though otherwise tricycle undercarriage gived much easier handling and take-off/landing characteristics)


GregP
There are a number of reasons the P-38 has problems in the ETO (compared to the PTO, MTO, or NA), mostly on the early models, though still some issues of the P-38J. (boosted ailerons and dive flaps only on late J's, though the flaps could be retrofitted to earlier models)
There were issues with engines running too cool in cruise which would fail when brought up to combat power. The "surface intercoolers" on the pre-J were inadequate above ~19,000 ft and also posed mainenence issues and other dangers. (if a certain mistake was made with the engine and turbo controls the intercoolers could blow, litteraly rupturing the wing in some cases) There were problems with the turbochargers, some maintenance related, others related to the extreme cold at high altitude over Europe.
There was also the lack of cockpit heating on the early models, making high altitude flight dangerously uncomfortable for the pilot.
And of course there were the compressibility problems. (which were more acute in the cold air where the speed of sound is lower -explaining why this was less of a problem in the other theaters)

Basicly all the problems were related (more or less) to the low temperatured encountered over Europe)

Even operating in the Allutions the P-38 would have been in better conditions than over europe due to the significantly lower altitudes they operated.


Also the P-38 had the most "confirmed kills" of any USAAF fighter, the USN/USMC's Hellcat and Corsair outsoring it. (the Hellcat with the highest of any US fighter)

[kool kitty89]

Edit: wrong thread.

[GregP]

Hey Wuzak,

I have NO problem with the Mosquito and think it would have been a very good idea to use more of them or even to adopt them for the USAAC in Europe and elsewhere for the bomber or night fighter / night intruder role. Not very enthusiastic about wood airplanes in the tropics, but elsewhere is a different story.

The Mosquito had many great qualities and was versatile to an extraordinary degree. I love it and wait expectantly for one to fly soon. Hopefully, it will ...

As for the P-38, the intercoolers in the early models were capable of 1100 HP per side and if you used more power, the engine temperature would continue to rise, eventually resulting in engine suicide. This was "fixed" in later models. There is absolutely NO shred of proof that cold temperature had anything to do with the problems in Europe, other than the fact that the P-38 had a really bad cockpit heater and the pilot got COLD at high altitude.

If cold temperatures were the problem, then all cold weather operations should have been problematic; they weren't.

Despite our discussions, the P-38 was the best twin-engine fighter in the world available anytime in WWII to any combatant in any theater of operations.

If you disagree and feel that another aircraft of the twin-piston-engine variety was better at any time during teh war, make your case. We'll listen. If you pick the DH Hornet, I might concede, but only in a post-war timeframe. There were a couple of Japanese contenders, but they were prototypes and didn't reach squadron service. There were a couple of German types as well, but they were not there for the bulk of the war and made MUCH less of a contribution to the war than did the Lightning.

[Ricky]

We have kind of drifted off the opening topic.

This is not a discussion about hiow good a fighter the P-38 was, but about the maintenance levels it required to operate, and hence the economic comparison between running P-38 and Mossie. And the slightly unfair point that it did not have good rough landing capabilities...

I think a chunk of the answer lies with Wuzak's observation, that the company picked upo a couple of war-weary birds.

[Red Admiral]

If cold temperatures were the problem, then all cold weather operations should have been problematic; they weren't.

The atmosphere changes significantly with latitude and position. Cruising at 25000ft over Europe gives very different conditions to cruising at the same altitude over the pole or over the Sahara.

The Britannia had similar problems, it's cruising altitude when over the tropics meant that ice could readily form in the engine intakes. Over Europe the air is colder and less water vapour content so it's harder for ice to form up.

[kool kitty89]

This is not a discussion about hiow good a fighter the P-38 was, but about the maintenance levels it required to operate, and hence the economic comparison between running P-38 and Mossie. And the slightly unfair point that it did not have good rough landing capabilities...

Given the circumstances of this anecdote, it cannot be directly compared to conditions in WWII, though it's still interesting.

If by "rough landing" you are referring to my comment on taildraggers vs tricycle gear handling on "rough" airfields, this is generally true, though otherwise tricycle gear give better handling characteristics. (trycycle also does better in muddy conditions I beleive)

[GregP]

Sorry to have drifted off-topic. As I get older I tend to "drift off topic" more easily.

Let's drift off-topic into mathmatics for a short discussion.

Let's suppose an engine is 90% reliable. That is, it experiences a maintenance related failure to launch or mission abort 10% of the time due to the engine.

Given the above as a starting point, then a single-engine aircraft with this engine will have a down rate of 10% on average. A twin-engine aircraft would have a reliability rate of 0.90 * 0.90 = 0.81 or 81%, making it seem less reliable than the single engine aircraft, but it uses the same engine with the same reliability.

This math is probably responsible for the perceived reliability rate of all twins powered by engines also used on singles. Reliability for sequential events multiplies. In point of fact, each engine is still 90% reliable, but they aren't always in sync with each other, so one or the other usually fails, resulting in a mission abort.

About "unimproved strips," tricycle gear usually IS somewhat less tolerant of rough field operations but, as stated earlier very well, offers better grounhd handling, better handling in mud, and usually better survival in an emergency landing on an airstrip.

The Allison was a reliable engine and its reliability was MUCH better than 90%. Don't have the real numbers and am not sure they exist anywhere we can find them, but I know that in 3 years of operations at the Planes of Fame, we have yet to experience a failure to launch a mission due an Allison.

The only Allison-related maintenance issue we have experienced recently was made famous, but the P-38 was NOT a Planes of Fame aircraft ... "Glacier Girl," Rod Lewis' P-38F aborted some 450 miles out over the Atlantic Ocean on Operation Bolero II. The culprit was a cracked cylinder liner and the engine ran all the way back to Goose Bay, albeit at low power. The symptoms were some visible venting of coolant on an occasional basis. When an Allison engine exhibits this characteristic, it is almost always a cracked cylinder liner.

A friend of mine has a P-51D and his Merlin ate a piston ring with only 120 hours on the engine since complete rebuild, so Merlins are not immune to niggling problems, either. Likewise, we have had a few "gotchas" with R-2800s and R-2600s, too. Not many, but a few.

However, it is worth remembering that the famous WWII engines were picked for their reliability, robustness, and produceability in WWII. Engines that looked promising but had early problems were USUALLY but not always developed before production commenced. An exception was the Napier Sabre. But, even the Sabre was "fixed" eventually and turned into a reliable powerplant. Another exception was the R-3350 that went into the B-29. Eventually it, too, turned into a reliable powerplant.

Relaibility is nebulous. If YOUR engine malfunctions, you get a bad taste in your mouth regarding that engine. If it doesn't, it is a GREAT engine, even if all the others fail. Fighter pilots who only flew ONE fighter are always sure that their fighter was the best ever, even though they have no basis for comparison. Their opinions of the reliability of engines are likewise formed in a comparative vacuum. What is needed is the service history of an engine make and mark so a fair analysis can be done.

[ChrisMcD]

I would tend to agree with the consensus.

I have a feeling that Canadian ground crews would be more familiar with the Merlin and I have a suspicion that the Lightning's ducting had to be 'just right' if it was to give good economical performance.

To me, the suggestion of war weary, unfamiliar airframes and engines being 'fine tuned' by men trained on RAF kit makes a lot of sense

One thing that I do not think has been mentioned is that the Mosquito was notoriously overheated in it's cockpit - at least for ETO - but possibly just right for the Arctic? Whereas, as has been pointed out earlier, there is a suspicion that a lot of the P-38's problems over Europe were due to frozen crews making the wrong control adjustments.

So the Mossie probably was more popular with Canadian ground crews and pilots.

The only criticism I have ever heard of the Alison's reliability was with RAF Tomahawks in the Western Desert, where there were bearing problems. But, to be fair, I suspect that these were engines being flogged at maximum revs to try and avoid Me 109E's.

For steady, economical cruising I would expect the Alison to be at least comparable to the Merlin if not superior. Despite huge amounts of effort the Merlin never really hacked it as an airliner engine (but then neither did the Alison to my knowledge).

[Trexx]

Excellent comments, especially you, Greg.

Talk about a bad taste in your mouth! Effeminate and P-38 in the same sentence are just fight'n words! Good gawd. Not only was the Lightning powered with reliable powerplants that had exotic high performance boost sytems that worked dang great it had a very strong airframe. It was hard to break. Let's talk about breaking things. It was more than likely a Lightning that broke the sound barrier for the first time (in a dive) and then had the wear-withall to be the first to hang together after the event. With the subsequent pilot report enlightning (ha pun!) a new pardigm of high speed related issues. P-38s have a remarkable legacy of being very hearty and resilient to battle damage. Admittedly it might look a bit prissy, but you'd be wrong to think so. I like to think of it as an elegant airplane armed to the teeth.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

The atmosphere changes significantly with latitude and position. Cruising at 25000ft over Europe gives very different conditions to cruising at the same altitude over the pole or over the Sahara.

The Britannia had similar problems, it's cruising altitude when over the tropics meant that ice could readily form in the engine intakes. Over Europe the air is colder and less water vapour content so it's harder for ice to form up.

Once you get high into the troposphere and are above 30,000 feet or so, there are not that many significant changes in weather conditions. Humidity and icing conditions are far below. In fact, "weather" is far below--except for some cirrus clouds and some towering cumulus that can go up to around 50,000 feet.

The conditions high over Europe are certainly not more severe than over Alaska.

Regards,

Lightning

Reason for edit: Change "tropopause" for "troposphere

[Red Admiral]

Once you get above the tropopause and are above 30,000 feet or so, there are not that many significant changes in weather conditions.

30,000ft is a bit high for continuous cruising in a P-38 over Europe probably a few thousand feet lower. Above most of the clouds though, only your own contrails for company.

The conditions high over Europe are certainly not more severe than over Alaska.

No, but the conditions are different. You've got a complicated mix of air at different temperature and different moisture content with small variations in pressure. At cruising altitude over Europe the mixture didn't suit the V-1710 engine, like with the Britannia over the tropics.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

The atmosphere changes significantly with latitude and position. Cruising at 25000ft over Europe gives very different conditions to cruising at the same altitude over the pole or over the Sahara.

Weather is mostly (not all) below you when you reach 20,000 feet, and it drops off to almost nothing by 30,000 feet. This is true all over the world--from north to south and from east to west. As to latitude:

London: 51° N
Berlin: 53° N
Aleutian Islands: 55° N

As you can see, London, Berlin, and the Aleutians lie within a band of latitude only about 4° wide--not very much.

Also, kool kitty89 said that operations in the Aleutians took place mostly at lower altitudes (not always true). If so, this is where conditions in the Aleutians were very much worse than those over Europe. Ice, snow, mud, low visibility, freezing rain and sleet, ice fog, high winds, and severe icing conditions were common. Airstrips were covered with foot-deep water which then froze or became a sea of mud. Where, anywhere in the world, were there worse, or even as bad, flying conditions--both in the air and on the ground--than in the Aleutians?

30,000ft is a bit high for continuous cruising in a P-38 over Europe probably a few thousand feet lower. Above most of the clouds though, only your own contrails for company.

And those contrails were from the moisture in the exhaust gases condensing, not from humidity in the atmosphere at that altitude.


No, but the conditions are different. You've got a complicated mix of air at different temperature and different moisture content with small variations in pressure. At cruising altitude over Europe the mixture didn't suit the V-1710 engine, like with the Britannia over the tropics.

Not at 20,000 feet. Those conditions did exist over Europe at lower altitudes, but, as stated earlier, not nearly as severely as in the Aleutians, and the P-38 performed just fine there--at all altitudes.

Regards, and Happy New Year,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi All,

With regard to the reliability and efficiency of the Lightning when used as a photo-recon plane and as an aerial mapping plane, that has already been discussed at length in other threads. In the interest of saving space and in not boring my fellow forum members, I will not quote them here.

My position is that there was no plane of WWII that was as good at either job--neither in military nor in civilian use.

If anyone is interested, my case is made in the thread "Post War Aerial Mapping With The P-38" and in the following postings in the thread "Mosquito vs Bf 110 in the Fighter Role": Postings #112; #122; #126.

There were also other, lengthy, threads dealing strictly with the F4/F5 in WWII.

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky and kool kitty89,

With reference to the comments regarding the operation of the P-38 out of rough airfields:

We have kind of drifted off the opening topic.

This is not a discussion about hiow good a fighter the P-38 was, but about the maintenance levels it required to operate, and hence the economic comparison between running P-38 and Mossie. And the slightly unfair point that it did not have good rough landing capabilities...

I think a chunk of the answer lies with Wuzak's observation, that the company picked upo a couple of war-weary birds.



Given the circumstances of this anecdote, it cannot be directly compared to conditions in WWII, though it's still interesting.

If by "rough landing" you are referring to my comment on taildraggers vs tricycle gear handling on "rough" airfields, this is generally true, though otherwise tricycle gear give better handling characteristics. (trycycle also does better in muddy conditions I beleive)

The P-38s were operated from tiny, unimproved fields all over the world. They flew from short, muddy strips on small islands in the Pacific. They flew from short strips in the Aleutians where the surface alternated berween ice, mud, and deep water. They flew from sandy, dusty fields in North Africa. After the invasion of Europe, they flew from forward, unimproved, and quickly improvised fighter strips on The Continent.

Carrier operations are hard on an aircraft--mostly on landings--but at least the "runway" is always smooth, and brakes are not needed to stop. Also, takeoffs and landings are always into a strong headwind that is straight down the runway.

The F6F operated primarily from carriers. The F4U flew most of its sorties from land bases, but, later in the war, was finally approved for carriers.

Flying off the unimproved land airfields was another matter. The surface was often rough. Even when pierced-steel planking was used, it was plagued by warping and buckling, and was often covered with ice, snow, mud, or water. Brakes were, many times, usless.

The effort was always made to orient these strips into the prevaling winds, but this was often not possible. Many times fully loaded P-38s had to take off or land into a stiff crosswind, or even downwind--and this with battle damage or on one engine.

No, the P-38 was not a delicate airplane.

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi kool kitty89,

Also the P-38 had the most "confirmed kills" of any USAAF fighter, the USN/USMC's Hellcat and Corsair outsoring it. (the Hellcat with the highest of any US fighter)

The P-38 was 3rd in the number of kills of all US fighters during the war. The numbers were (rounded numbers):

P-51: 5940 kills (But included many 8th AF ground kills)
F6F: 5200 kills
P-38: 3785 kills (Included few 8rh AF ground kills)
P-47: 3625 kills (Included some 8th AF ground kills)
P-40: 2255 kills
F4U: 2140 kills

As you can see, the Corsair ranked 6th. The above numbers fail to consider the following: Of the roughly 10,000 P-38s built, only about 8500 were combat fighters. The approximately 1500 (and maybe more) that were not available for air-air combat or ground-attack included YP-38s, F4/F5 photo recon planes, P-38M nightfighters (since they appeared in only the last few weeks of the war and never engaged in combat), and model 322 "Lightning I"s originally built for the British but used as trainers when they were subsequently rejected. There were also those "J"s and "L"s modified to the "Droop Snoot" and "Pathfinder" configurations.

Those 8500 Lightnings served all over the world--not only in combat theaters, but in areas such as the Continental USA and the Panama Canal Zone where no combat was engaged in.

Compare those P-38 production numbers with those of the other prominent fighters mentioned above:

P-51: 15,200
F6F: 12,200
P-47: 15,600
P-40: 13,700
F4U: 12,500
Few of these aircraft were modified for non-combat roles (photo recon, trainers, etc.), so almost all of them were used in combat.

As to kills against Japanese aircraft, consider this: The F6F and F4U, although available in far greater numbers than the P-38 to begin with, were almost exclusively used against the Japanese and were employed relatively later in the war against a greatly weakened enemy. The Lightnings, even though far fewer in number, were used much earlier and against both the Germans and Japanese when these enemies were at their strongest.

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

Came across this little tid-bit of info.

"In the Aleutians, the initial batch of P-38Es of the 54th Fighter Squadron were supplanted by a specially-winterized version of the Lightning, the P-38G-10-LO."

[Ricky]

Before anybody else asks - where did you find that?

[Kutscha]

Oops forgot.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_18.html

[Lightning]

Came across this little tid-bit of info.

"In the Aleutians, the initial batch of P-38Es of the 54th Fighter Squadron were supplanted by a specially-winterized version of the Lightning, the P-38G-10-LO."

I find the use of bold print in the cited quotation as being rather odd in that it implies that the winterization of those P-38Gs was a thing out of the ordinary thereby making those Lightnings somehow basically different from others. The word "specially" is redundant in that any winterization process is "special" in comparison to aircraft not called upon to operate in frozen climes. It is not at all unusual to winterize aircraft being deployed to arctic conditions for extended periods. In fact, it would be very unwise not to do so.

In May 1942, 25 P-38Es of the 54th FS, 343rd FG, 11th AF were winterized at Lockheed's Burbank plant and then sent to Elmendorf Field in Anchorage, Alaska. These are probably the aircraft mentioned in the website given in the quotation cited above, but the winterization was not mentioned there--only that they were upgraded to P-38F-1-LO standards. This is documented in Warren Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" and in Francis Dean's "America's 100,000."

In the autumn of 1942, the 11th AF in Alaska was using the following aircraft: B-17, B-24, LB-30, B-26, C-47, P-38, P-39, P-40, and OA-10. These would have all been winterized.

It is interesting to note that all the fighters mentioned were equipped with those Allison engines that are sometimes blamed for not being able to operate in cold conditions, and, even so, the problems experienced by the 8th AF never materialized.

[Kutscha]

How many of those Allison fighters had turbochargers?

[Lightning]

Hi all,

It has, on occasion, been stated here that the conditions of high altitude and extreme cold over Europe during the winter of 1943-44 were more severe than those experienced over other cold weather areas where the P-38 operated--even Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. The following facts do not agree:

Quoting from Warren Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning": "Without a doubt, the Aleutian weather had to qualify as about the worst in the world.... Temperatures in the B-17, B-24, and P-38E cockpits at 20,000 feet were recorded at 60 degrees below zero. Rubber parts frequently shattered like glass. Hydraulic fluids were close to solidifying in the lines."

Then there was "Operation Bolero." The route followed by the P-38s took them to latitudes far north of any of those over which the 8th AF flew its missions in Europe. They included Goose Bay, Labrador (62° N) and Reykjavik, Iceland (64° N). The famous "Lost Squadron" of six P-38s and two B-17s landed on the Greenland ice cap at 65° 20' N--less than 100 miles from the Arctic Circle and over 800 miles north of the latitude of Berlin!

Altitudes during the crossing often were 20,000 to 25,000 feet, and it was sometimes necessary to approach 30,000 feet in order to get out of the clouds. One pilot reported a cockpit temperature of 30° below zero at 27,000 feet (and he probably had the heater on full blast).

Again quoting from Bodie: "Actual losses [on Bolero] were entirely due to operational errors, poor navigation and the weather.... The Allisons were extremely reliable--[i]flying on American fuels --and the Lockheed external tanks could hardly have performed better."

Of 186 P-38s sent over the Atlantic on Bolero, only [i]seven were lost, and these included the six Lightnings of the Lost Squadron.

Regards,

Lightning

[Lightning]

How many of those Allison fighters had turbochargers?

All of the P-38s--i.e. Two per aircraft.

[Red Admiral]

It has, on occasion, been stated here that the conditions of high altitude and extreme cold over Europe during the winter of 1943-44 were more severe than those experienced over other cold weather areas where the P-38 operated--even Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.

I don't remember any stating that conditions were worse over Europe, but they were definitely different. Moist cold air forming ice or condensation in the intakes as opposed to cold dry air over the Aleutians. I'm not a metrologist but there is massive regional and seasonal variation.

[Kutscha]

All of the P-38s--i.e. Two per aircraft.

It is interesting to note that all the fighters mentioned were equipped with those Allison engines that are sometimes blamed for not being able to operate in cold conditions,...

Thanks for the clarification because I haven't come across any mention of any supercharger engined Allison powered a/c having problems in cold climates.

[Kutscha]

"The P-38E seems to have had reasonable servicability in the Aleutians, relative to the conditions, tough on any a/c. The 54th Fighter Sdn, only unit equipped with the type prior to the Japanese evacuation of Kiska, didn't start receiving G's until March 1943, having entered action in August '42.

The Aleutians aren't usually extremely cold at sea level, and those operations weren't flown at high altitude, so in terms of pure cold weather problems it was probably less challenging than ETO. The Aleutian weather is just typically very bad: cloud, thick fog, icing conditions, sudden extreme winds, etc.; a serious menace to all types of WWII a/c. The 11th AF's total losses were 6.5 time its combat losses. So in those generally terrible conditions flying mainly over non-survivably cold ocean, the fuel load and extra engine of the P-38 were big advantages. In early operations from Unmak only the P-38 among fighters could conduct any kind of offensive operations, P-40's and 39's couldn't nearly reach Kiska, though it was risky even for P-38's. When the field at Adak was developed, P-39/40's could reach Kiska, but the P-38 still had a greater fuel reserve to wait out a sudden change in weather that prevented landing or even finding the airfield. Only when the field at Amchitka was developed, right near Kiska, were operations by the single enging planes relatively easy.

Also early P-38's ops in 8th AF were flying into a hornets nest of superior numbers of high quality enemy fighters, which probably also colored the opinion of the plane's other shortcomings. Japanese air resistance on Kiska in contrast was limited to relatively small numbers of Type 2 Float Fighters ('Rufe'); the Japanese never managed to build any airfields in the Aleutians (and P-38's arrived after the brief Japanese carrier ops in the Aleutians). The P-38's air combat record against the Type 2 in the Aleutians was actually not good in a small sample, P-38's downed 1-1/3 Rufe's (as confirmed in Japanese accounts combat by combat, prorating for other types' claims in those combats) for 5 losses of their own to the floatplanes, 2 in a collision during a combat with them. They also downed 2-3 Type 1 Land Attack Planes ('Betty') flying from the Kuriles during the invasion of Attu for another P-38 loss, and perhaps a few Type 0 Recon Seaplanes (Jake) of which they claimed several, I don't know the actual Japanese losses. The first claimed P-38 victories, v Type 97 Flying Boats ('Mavis'), seem to be refuted by Japanese accounts. The P-39/40 combined record v the Type 2 Float Fighter in the Aleutians was 7-2/3:1 in favor of the landplanes. But, the enemy floatplanes were not the biggest danger, the weather was; AA was a serious hazard as well."

Joe

Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA.

[ickysdad]

"The P-38E seems to have had reasonable servicability in the Aleutians, relative to the conditions, tough on any a/c. The 54th Fighter Sdn, only unit equipped with the type prior to the Japanese evacuation of Kiska, didn't start receiving G's until March 1943, having entered action in August '42.

The Aleutians aren't usually extremely cold at sea level, and those operations weren't flown at high altitude, so in terms of pure cold weather problems it was probably less challenging than ETO. The Aleutian weather is just typically very bad: cloud, thick fog, icing conditions, sudden extreme winds, etc.; a serious menace to all types of WWII a/c. The 11th AF's total losses were 6.5 time its combat losses. So in those generally terrible conditions flying mainly over non-survivably cold ocean, the fuel load and extra engine of the P-38 were big advantages. In early operations from Unmak only the P-38 among fighters could conduct any kind of offensive operations, P-40's and 39's couldn't nearly reach Kiska, though it was risky even for P-38's. When the field at Adak was developed, P-39/40's could reach Kiska, but the P-38 still had a greater fuel reserve to wait out a sudden change in weather that prevented landing or even finding the airfield. Only when the field at Amchitka was developed, right near Kiska, were operations by the single enging planes relatively easy.

Also early P-38's ops in 8th AF were flying into a hornets nest of superior numbers of high quality enemy fighters, which probably also colored the opinion of the plane's other shortcomings. Japanese air resistance on Kiska in contrast was limited to relatively small numbers of Type 2 Float Fighters ('Rufe'); the Japanese never managed to build any airfields in the Aleutians (and P-38's arrived after the brief Japanese carrier ops in the Aleutians). The P-38's air combat record against the Type 2 in the Aleutians was actually not good in a small sample, P-38's downed 1-1/3 Rufe's (as confirmed in Japanese accounts combat by combat, prorating for other types' claims in those combats) for 5 losses of their own to the floatplanes, 2 in a collision during a combat with them. They also downed 2-3 Type 1 Land Attack Planes ('Betty') flying from the Kuriles during the invasion of Attu for another P-38 loss, and perhaps a few Type 0 Recon Seaplanes (Jake) of which they claimed several, I don't know the actual Japanese losses. The first claimed P-38 victories, v Type 97 Flying Boats ('Mavis'), seem to be refuted by Japanese accounts. The P-39/40 combined record v the Type 2 Float Fighter in the Aleutians was 7-2/3:1 in favor of the landplanes. But, the enemy floatplanes were not the biggest danger, the weather was; AA was a serious hazard as well."

Joe

Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA.

Should we take Joe B's word over say Warren Bodie or Francis Dean ? On wether or not the Aleutions had less moisture then Northern Europe is mute since most weather is below say 20K if I'm not wrong.

[Ricky]

I find the use of bold print in the cited quotation as being rather odd in that it implies that the winterization of those P-38Gs was a thing out of the ordinary thereby making those Lightnings somehow basically different from others. The word "specially" is redundant in that any winterization process is "special" in comparison to aircraft not called upon to operate in frozen climes. It is not at all unusual to winterize aircraft being deployed to arctic conditions for extended periods. In fact, it would be very unwise not to do so.

In May 1942, 25 P-38Es of the 54th FS, 343rd FG, 11th AF were winterized at Lockheed's Burbank plant and then sent to Elmendorf Field in Anchorage, Alaska. These are probably the aircraft mentioned in the website given in the quotation cited above, but the winterization was not mentioned there--only that they were upgraded to P-38F-1-LO standards. This is documented in Warren Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" and in Francis Dean's "America's 100,000."

In the autumn of 1942, the 11th AF in Alaska was using the following aircraft: B-17, B-24, LB-30, B-26, C-47, P-38, P-39, P-40, and OA-10. These would have all been winterized.

It is interesting to note that all the fighters mentioned were equipped with those Allison engines that are sometimes blamed for not being able to operate in cold conditions, and, even so, the problems experienced by the 8th AF never materialized.

What does 'winterizing' involve, and would that have caused (or helped to cause) the difference between ETO and Aluetian Lightning performance?

[Wuzak]

The fix for ETO P-38s was relatively simple, according to Dan Whitney, Vees for Victory. It involved an additional part in the intake piping, nothing more.

[Lightning]

The Aleutians aren't usually extremely cold at sea level, and those operations weren't flown at high altitude, so in terms of pure cold weather problems it was probably less challenging than ETO.

The conditions in Europe are also not exremely cold at sea level, and they are far more benign than those in the Aleutians, but we are not talking about sea level.


The P-38's air combat record against the Type 2 in the Aleutians was actually not good in a small sample, P-38's downed 1-1/3 Rufe's (as confirmed in Japanese accounts combat by combat, prorating for other types' claims in those combats) for 5 losses of their own to the floatplanes, 2 in a collision during a combat with them.

The operative words here are "small sample." How much smaller could it be? And even then, two of the Lightning's losses were to a collision--not to the Rufes. This is even more meaningless than trying to make the point that Brewster F2As were great fighters based on their kill ratio in the hands of the Finns.

For one thing, I don't recall having read this in any other account of P-38 operations in the Aleutians. For another thing, even if it is true, it would be a case of a pittifully small sample of air combat by very inexperienced (combat experience--remember that America had just recently entered the war) US pilots, flying very early versions of the P-38 against Japanese pilots that had probably been battle tested in the several years that Japan had already been at war. Also, the Rufe was no slouch. It was a Zero with floats, and those floats did not detract all that much from the land/carrier plane's performance.


Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA.

Aren't we all.


As to the cold-weather/high-altitude conditions that the Lightning experienced over the Aleutions, let me restate the following:



Quoting from Warren Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning": "Without a doubt, the Aleutian weather had to qualify as about the worst in the world.... Temperatures in the B-17, B-24, and P-38E cockpits at 20,000 feet were recorded at 60 degrees below zero. Rubber parts frequently shattered like glass. Hydraulic fluids were close to solidifying in the lines."

Re "Operation Bolo":

Then there was "Operation Bolero." The route followed by the P-38s took them to latitudes far north of any of those over which the 8th AF flew its missions in Europe. They included Goose Bay, Labrador (62° N) and Reykjavik, Iceland (64° N). The famous "Lost Squadron" of six P-38s and two B-17s landed on the Greenland ice cap at 65° 20' N--less than 100 miles from the Arctic Circle and over 800 miles north of the latitude of Berlin!

Altitudes during the crossing often were 20,000 to 25,000 feet, and it was sometimes necessary to approach 30,000 feet in order to get out of the clouds. One pilot reported a cockpit temperature of 30° below zero at 27,000 feet (and he probably had the heater on full blast).

Again quoting from Bodie: "Actual losses [on Bolero] were entirely due to operational errors, poor navigation and the weather.... The Allisons were extremely reliable--[i]flying on American fuels --and the Lockheed external tanks could hardly have performed better."

Of 186 P-38s sent over the Atlantic on Bolero, only [i]seven were lost, and these included the six Lightnings of the Lost Squadron.

Notice the refference to "American fuels."

And last--but assuredly not least--were the conditions over the Alps when flying missions out of Italy. Certainly not low-level missions.

[Kutscha]

Quote:
Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA.


Aren't we all.

Some are more amateur than others. ;)

wiki
The large float and wing pontoons of the A6M2-N degraded its performance by about 20%, enough that the Rufe was not usually a match for even the first generation of Allied fighters.

[Ricky]

Sorry to keep bringing up things, but (to my limited intellect) I don't think they have been answered...

1) Would the winterisation of the P-38 air intakes cause the difference?

2) Would the fact that the atmosphere over Europe is damper (despite not being colder) cause the difference?

3) If I go out for dinner tonight, should I have Chinese or Indian?

[Stony]

3) If I go out for dinner tonight, should I have Chinese or Indian?

Why don't you try Japanese?

[Wuzak]

Sorry to keep bringing up things, but (to my limited intellect) I don't think they have been answered...

1) Would the winterisation of the P-38 air intakes cause the difference?

2) Would the fact that the atmosphere over Europe is damper (despite not being colder) cause the difference?

3) If I go out for dinner tonight, should I have Chinese or Indian?

I'm always quite partial to Indian, though I can't eat anything too spicy.....

Dan Whtney says that much of the problem for the P-38 in Europe was that the intercooler could cool the charge too much, and the tetra-ethyl-lead would condense in the intake piping, leading to poor mixture distribution and detonation. The solution was a venturi, or something similar, which would revaporise the TEL and thus prevent the problems.

[Lightning]

Quote:
Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA.



Some are more amateur than others. ;)

I've noticed that. ;)

wiki
The large float and wing pontoons of the A6M2-N degraded its performance by about 20%, enough that the Rufe was not usually a match for even the first generation of Allied fighters.

Yes, I read that too. The speed was degraded by about 20%, climb rate by about 15%, and ceiling by only 3%. The max-loaded weight of the Rufe was only abot 100 lbs heavier than that of the A6M2. The Rufe did, however, retain much of the maeuverability of the contemporary Zero.

Robert Mikesh, in his book, Zero Fighter, states: "Despite the weight and drag of the floats, these fighters were fast and maneuverable. They served their mission very well initially [Aleutians], but in a short time, they were unable to effectively counter Allied land-based fighters."

Joe B., on the website quoted earlier, gives the following account:

"The P-38's air combat record against the Type 2 in the Aleutians was actually not good in a small sample, P-38's downed 1-1/3 Rufe's (as confirmed in Japanese accounts combat by combat, prorating for other types' claims in those combats) for 5 losses of their own to the floatplanes, 2 in a collision during a combat with them."

Warren Bodie (The Lockheed P-38 Lightning) describes this action as follows (paraphrasing):

On September 14, 1942, P-38s and P-39s attacked five Rufes that were trying to break up an American bomber formation. The Rufes were destroyed. The American pilots killed in the collision of the two P-38s were Maj. William Jackson and Lt. Dewey Crowe. They collided while pursuing a diving Rufe.

Ther was no mention of any other losses of either P-38s or P-39s.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

Sorry to keep bringing up things, but (to my limited intellect) I don't think they have been answered...

1) Would the winterisation of the P-38 air intakes cause the difference?

It would have had to have made some difference in cold weather operations, otherwise why do it? As to how it ties in with the problems over Europe, I don't know. If those problems were fuel related, perhaps it had little effect.

2) Would the fact that the atmosphere over Europe is damper (despite not being colder) cause the difference?

At lower altitudes, the atmosphere over Europe is not more humid than it is over the Aleutians--On the contrary, it is much less humid. Also, visible atmospheric moisture in the Aleutians--clouds, rain, snow, fog, etc.)--is much more prevalent than in Europe.

It is at the higher altitudes--above 20,000 feet--that moisture and humidity decline greatly, in both areas, as well as over the entire globe.

3) If I go out for dinner tonight, should I have Chinese or Indian?

Personally, I really like a HOT Indian curry. One note of caution, however: This leads to a substantial thirst. You'll drink five or six and then P-38!

Regards,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

Dan Whtney says that much of the problem for the P-38 in Europe was that the intercooler could cool the charge too much, and the tetra-ethyl-lead would condense in the intake piping, leading to poor mixture distribution and detonation. The solution was a venturi, or something similar, which would revaporise the TEL and thus prevent the problems.

And many commentators attribute this problem to improperly formulated fuel. Also, the problems were mainly with the P-38H which still had the leading edge intercoolers. In fact, it was the presence of these intercoolers that caused the "H" to have power restrictions on its upgraded engines due to inadequate intercooling. The more-efficient "core" type intercoolers were on the P-38J and L models.

It is significant to note that the the P-38E, F, G, H*, J, and L models were all operated under high altitude/extreme cold conditions in other cold weather areas of the world without experiencing the problems that the 8th AF had over Europe while flying out of England. This has been stressed repeatedly throughout this and other threads.


*I'm not really sure about the "H" here. Most were used by the 8th AF during the period where their problems over Europe occurred. Only about 600 H models were built; some were completed as F-5s at the factory, and some were modified to F-5s after delivery. Since photo-recon planes are often used at high altitudes, it is quite possible that some of those F-5s were used under these conditions in other areas, but I can't state this for certain.


Regards,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

I've noticed that. ;)

Like those that use 'coffee table' books as reliable primary reference sources.

[Lightning]

Per Kutscha
"Joe B is an amateur expert on the WW2 Pacific and the KPA."

Per Kutscha "Like those that use 'coffee table' books as reliable primary reference sources."



No, like those who do not hesitate to quote, as a reference source, a website written by a guy who signs his work "Joe." If I had cited that piece, written by an "amateur" and signed "Joe," as a source of reference, it would have been suddenly relegated to the lowly status of a "coffee table" book (or even lower).

Note to Kutscha's mom:

Dear Mrs. Kutscha:

Your son does not play well with others. Perhaps, with a lot of effort, you can improve his social skills and teach him some manners.

Sincerely yours,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

Poor Lightning. :(

If you got out more (that is, visited more boards) you would not be as ignorant of who Joe B(rennan) is. He has a very respectable reputation as a researcher and historian. :)

[Ricky]

Play nice boys...:rolleyes:


So basically the winterisation was a widget that aimed to cure the problems encountered in Europe? I guess we don't really have the facts to make a definate fuel vs. conditions answer, particularly as the two areas most used in such discussions had planes that differed in both respects.


Oh, and I ended up having Chinese - my friend's wife is pregnant, and declared that she wanted Chinese.;)

[merlin]

Thought I would quote an extract from Eagle in Flames Vol 2, by E. R. Hooton, the quote follows on from the disatrous Schweinfurt mission of 14 October.

The disaster created a crisis of confidence within the Eighth Air Force and in Washington over Eaker, while the inability of the RAF to assist led to Anglo-American friction. An escort fighter was the prime requirement, for even with two 150 US gallon (568 ltr) drop tanks the backbone of the USAAF fighter groups, the Thunderbolt, had a radius of just 725 km. Much was expected of the P-38 lighting, which began operating from 15 October, for with the single 150 US gallon drop tank it could escort bombers some 725 km (to between Hanover and Berlin) into Germany and with two tanks as far as Berlin. But deliveries were slow, it was no match for nimble single-engine fighters and when shackled to the bombers it was forced to operate below optimum performance. Worse still, the cold, moist European air played havoc with the Allison engines; indeed , half the Lighting losses during the winter 1943/44 were to engine failure.

[ickysdad]

If you all want a good book on US fighters use Francis Dean's " America's 100,000" it's certainly no "coffee table book" .

Kutschka,
just what book is Lightning using that's a coffe table book?

[Wuzak]

Weren't many of the P-38s the 8th AF had diverted to North Africa to support Torch?

[Lightning]

Poor Lightning. :(

If you got out more (that is, visited more boards) you would not be as ignorant of who Joe B(rennan) is. He has a very respectable reputation as a researcher and historian. :)

I guess that's why you described him as an "amateur."

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

Kutschka,
just what book is Lightning using that's a coffe table book?

Before we go much farther with this dicussion, several terms used by Kutscha should be defined.


From Kutscha's lexicon:

Coffee Table Book: Any book that disagrees with Kutscha--including, but not limited to, the Encyclopedias Britannica and Americana, the World Almanac, and Newton's Principia.

Reliable Reference: Any source that agrees with Kutscha--to include books, articles, the writings of Aesop and the Brothers Grimm, and, of course, "Joe B".

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

I guess that's why you described him as an "amateur."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Amateur as in afiak, he hasn't published and been paid.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

Weren't many of the P-38s the 8th AF had diverted to North Africa to support Torch?

Yes they were. After only a very few sorties out of England, all of the Lightnings based there were sent to support the invasion of North Africa on Nov. 8, 1942.

Regards,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

Hi ickysdad,



Before we go much farther with this dicussion, several terms used by Kutscha should be defined.


From Kutscha's lexicon:

Coffee Table Book: Any book that disagrees with Kutscha--including, but not limited to, the Encyclopedias Britannica and Americana, the World Almanac, and Newton's Principia.

Reliable Reference: Any source that agrees with Kutscha--to include books, articles, the writings of Aesop and the Brothers Grimm, and, of course, "Joe B".

Regards,
Lightning

No Lightning.

Coffee Table Book as in 'The Complete Book of Fighters: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of every fighter a/c built and flown' by W.Green/ G. Swanborough

Reliable Reference as in 'Messerschmitt Bf109 A-E' and 'Messerschmitt Bf109 F-K' by W. Radinger/ W. Schick.

Reliable Reference as in Spitfire: The History by EB Morgan/E. Shacklady

Reliable Reference as in 'Focke-Wulf Ta 152' by D. Hermann

Reliable Reference as in 'Focke-Wulf Fw190D' by D. Hermann

Reliable Reference as in 'Me262' Vol.1-4 by JR Smith/ EJ Creek

Reliable Reference as in ' Focke-Wulf Fw190A' by D Hermann/U Leverenz/E Weber

Reliable Reference as in 'Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K Series' by J Prein/P Rodeike

[Lightning]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Amateur as in afiak, he hasn't published and been paid.

If it's the Joe Brennan I'm thinking of, he has sold some publications--on FARs and the like. That doesn't translate to being an expert source on the Pacific war.

By the way, William Green is a highly respected professional aviation writer and he has published many books which have sold for a lot of money, but since they don't agree with you on ocassion, they become "coffee table books." Otherwise, they suddenly are transformed into "reliable referrences."

Those books you cite (none of which were written by "Joe B") were sold, but you still called him an "amateur." Again, those books (even if they were written by him) would not translate into expertise on the Pacific war.

[Lightning]

Hi All,



Coffee Table Book as in 'The Complete Book of Fighters: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of every fighter a/c built and flown' by W.Green/ G. Swanborough

Reliable Reference as in 'Messerschmitt Bf109 A-E' and 'Messerschmitt Bf109 F-K' by W. Radinger/ W. Schick.

Reliable Reference as in Spitfire: The History by EB Morgan/E. Shacklady

Reliable Reference as in 'Focke-Wulf Ta 152' by D. Hermann

Reliable Reference as in 'Focke-Wulf Fw190D' by D. Hermann

Reliable Reference as in 'Me262' Vol.1-4 by JR Smith/ EJ Creek

Reliable Reference as in ' Focke-Wulf Fw190A' by D Hermann/U Leverenz/E Weber

Reliable Reference as in 'Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K Series' by J Prein/P Rodeike

It is a safe bet that Kutscha has, at sometime in the past, used information he got from The Complete Book of Fighters to document some point he was trying to make. He may, or may not, have actually cited the book as a reference, but I would strongly lean toward the latter.

Regarding William Green as being a reliable aviation reference source,it's an even safer bet that Kutscha has used and cited his works more than once.

As for the other books given as reliable sources in Kutscha's list, I would not dispute that description. I, myself, would not feel uncomfotable using them, but they are no less "coffee table books" than those written by Green and the other respected aviation writers whose works Kutscha has tried to disparage. In fact, I would imagine that there are many coffee tables adorned with those books at this very moment.

There is danger in being a book snob in that none of the books and authors that one dismisses as being unworthy in a given circumstance can ever again be cited by him as being a source trusted for its reliability. A valuable well has thus been poisoned.

Regards,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,


...I guess we don't really have the facts to make a definate fuel vs. conditions answer,....

That's been the problem all along--No one does.


Oh, and I ended up having Chinese - my friend's wife is pregnant, and declared that she wanted Chinese.;)

A wise choice. :D

[Kutscha]

Thanks as I did know JB had published some papers. BTW, afaik means 'as far as I know'.

As for your expert W Green, this is the little blurb he wrote on the Me109K-4. You do recognize what book it is from, don't you?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/bf109k-4-5.jpg

Your W Green is just a little bit off on the number of K-4s built.
K 4 Mttr Sept - 15, Oct - 293, Nov - 221, Dec - 325, Jan - 338, Feb - 233, Mar- 168 for a TOTAL of 1593.

Another error by your expert W Green in his book published first in 1957, 'Famous Fighters of the Second World War'.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/bf109k-4-6.jpg

Notice the American ID number T2-123. This a/c is a Me109G-10/U4.

This what Jochen Prien had to say about the Me109K-6.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/bf109k-4-8.jpg

Oh dear your expert got something else wrong.

It is up to you if you want to continue being an ostrich or not.

Drifting away from the thread subject are you not Lightning. :eek: Were you not the one in the other thread that mentioned the thread was going OT? Please practice what you preach.

It is a safe bet that Kutscha has, at sometime in the past, used information he got from The Complete Book of Fighters to document some point he was trying to make.

Probably have but I at least triple check what Green has wrote since he has many errors.

[Lightning]

Thought I would quote an extract from Eagle in Flames Vol 2, by E. R. Hooton, the quote follows on from the disatrous Schweinfurt mission of 14 October.

...Much was expected of the P-38 lighting, which began operating from 15 October, for with the single 150 US gallon drop tank it could escort bombers some 725 km (to between Hanover and Berlin) into Germany and with two tanks as far as Berlin. But deliveries were slow, it was no match for nimble single-engine fighters and when shackled to the bombers it was forced to operate below optimum performance. Worse still, the cold, moist European air played havoc with the Allison engines; indeed , half the Lighting losses during the winter 1943/44 were to engine failure.

There has never been an argument about the problems with the P-38 during this time period--they certainly existed. The controversy lies in the cause of those engine failures. That subject has been argued in these threads to the point of exhaustion. (Please use the "Search" option if you would like to refer to those various threads.)

Regarding the "cold, moist European air," See the earlier postings in this thread, in which that issue has been addressed. Pay particular attention to the comparisons of the conditions over Europe with those over the Aleutian Islands and other cold weather areas in-and-over which the Lightning operated without similar problems.

The issues of short supply and of being tied to the bombers are true. When the P-51s were tied to the bombers, they too had difficulty engaging the enemy.

That the P-38 was somewhat less maneuverable than the single-engined fighters is both true and false depending on circumstances. The models with the maneuvering flaps, using asymmetrical power application to the two engines, could outmaneuver the German fighters at low speed--especially at low altitude. They could also hold their own maneuvering with a Zero at high altitude. The later models on which the dive flaps were installed surprised quite a few Luftwaffe pilots, to their sorrow, who thought they were safe in a high-speed dive.

As to the statement that the P-38 was "no match" for the single-engined fighters, considering the relatively low numbers of Lightnings compared to those of the other US fighters--in all theaters--the list of P-38 aces and kills does not bear that out.

Regards,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Thanks as I did know JB had published some papers. BTW, afaik means 'as far as I know'.

I know that. I'm just more literate than you are.

As for your expert W Green, this is the little blurb he wrote on the Me109K-4. You do recognize what book it is from, don't you?

You've got a one-track mind, Kutscha. That thread ended long ago. Since you can't seem to come up with something new, you have to keep going back to it. I told you that I had said my last word on it, and I meant it.

Drifting away from the thread subject are you not Lightning. :eek: Were you not the one in the other thread that mentioned the thread was going OT? Please practice what you preach.

Aw, Kutschy, are you losing your temper? I love it when your mad. You make such a fool of yourself.

You keep resurrecting an old thread, and you accuse me of drifting off topic? Come on Kutschycoo, your pitiful attempts at repartee are really showcasing your abundant shortcomings.
You just can't carry on an intelligent discussion without lapsing into your obnoxious mode, can you? Ok, I'm game. When it comes to trading verbal barbs, I'm your man. Your big problem here is that you don't react well to superior firepower.

[Lightning]

Probably have but I at least triple check what Green has wrote since he has many errors.

The word is "written," Kutscha. If Green had ever made anywhere near as many mistakes on aviation as you do in English, I'd agree with you on his ineptitude.



Note to Kutscha's high school English teacher (It doesn't appear he ever made it to college):


Dear Ms. Wordsmith:

You owe either the public school system or Kutscha's parents a refund.

Sincerely,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

Typical of those in the act of 'crashing and burning' that they turn to insults and flame baiting. So :(.


Aw, Kutschy, are you losing your temper? I love it when your mad. You make such a fool of yourself.

You keep resurrecting an old thread, and you accuse me of drifting off topic? Come on Kutschycoo, your pitiful attempts at repartee are really showcasing your abundant shortcomings.
You just can't carry on an intelligent discussion without lapsing into your obnoxious mode, can you? Ok, I'm game. When it comes to trading verbal barbs, I'm your man. Your big problem here is that you don't react well to superior firepower.

The only one getting upset and lapsing into an obnoxious mode and making a fool of one's self is you Lightning. When are blanks superior firepower, for that is all you are shooting.

I am having a good laugh enjoying your attempt at character assination.

[Lightning]

The only one getting upset and lapsing into an obnoxious mode and making a fool of one's self is you Lightning.

A weak comeback, Kutscha. This is the old "I know you are" retort that kids generally abandon as being too childish once they reach the 5th grade.

As far as the subject of being obnoxious goes, you have a history of such behavior going back over a period of years. You usually start out your participation in a given thread in a fairly reasonable manner, but soon, after someone has disagreed with your position, it starts--usually in the form of snide, disparaging, sarcastic remarks. It then goes downhill from there. Anyone who has followed the threads in which you have taken part knows exactly what I'm talking about.

A good example is in the present thread. The discussion was going along fine with everyone expressing their views--not necessarily all in agreement, but in a civil manner. You made the comment that "Joe B" was an amateur expert on the Pacific war, and I replied "aren't we all." This was a humorous aknowledgement that the folks in this forum are experts, to varying degrees, on the war. Your obnoxious mode started with the following :

Like those that [sic] use 'coffee table' books as reliable primary reference sources.

You just had to go back to an old thread and start anew what had been a fairly contentious exchange that was based on your sarcastic comments concerning "coffee table books." The thread had ended--it was over! But you just couldn't let it go--obnoxious.

I put up with your churlish, ill-mannered behavior for some time without a harsh response, and so did others. I argued with you, to be sure, but I did so without disrespecting you. To your discredit, you did not respond in kind.

There finally came a time when I had had enough, and I told you so in no uncertain terms--both in the forum and by private message--you remember. I put you on notice that you shall reap what you sow--with interest! I will not again tolerate your boorish antics. If you come at me, I'll come at you harder. If you wax sarcastic, I'll respond with disdain and scorn, and if you don't like it, tough!


When are blanks superior firepower, for that is all you are shooting.

When it comes to putting you down, even blanks are superior firepower. In fact, it's like spanking a puppy. The only difference is that the puppy sometimes doesn't deserve it.

I am having a good laugh enjoying your attempt at character assination.

You're not laughing, Kutscha, you're boiling. You know it, I know it, and anyone reading this post knows it.

I don't have to assassinate your character--your obnoxious, arrogant behavior amounts to character suicide. (By the way, the word is spelled "Assassination.")

[Kutscha]

Please stop Lightning as your posts in this thread, and the Spitfire thread, are disrupting the office. We are laughing so hard we have stomach pains.

Oh you caught the deliberate spelling error. Good for you Obergruppenführer of the Grammar and Spelling Police Dept.:)

A coffee table book is a hardcover book that is intended to sit on a coffee table or similar surface in an area where guests sit and are entertained, thus inspiring conversation or alleviating boredom. They tend to be oversized and of heavy construction, since there is no pressing need for portability. Subject matter is generally confined to non-fiction, and is usually visually-oriented. Pages consist mainly of photographs and illustrations, accompanied by captions and small blocks of text, as opposed to long prose. Since they are aimed at anyone who might pick the book up for a light read, the analysis inside is often more basic and with less jargon than other books on the subject. Because of this, the term 'coffee table book' can be used pejoratively to indicate a superficial approach to the subject. (wiki)

...........................

Lt Col Mark Hubbard, commander of the 20thFG from Mar 2 1944 to Mar 18 1944 on the P-38:

"As an air to air fighter, I would have to rank the P-38 behind the P-51, P-47, Me 109 and Fw 190. Below 20,000 feet it could hold its own but we didn't use it there."

The 20th was flying the P-38H and J to Jul 21 1944 when it converted to P-51s.

Mark Everett Hubbard was born in Wisconsin on 17 August 1913. He attended the University of Minnesota before joining the Army Air Forces and was commissioned and rated a pilot 11 May 1940. Already an experienced military pilot by the time America entered World War II, he was sent to North Africa in November 1942 as commander of the 59th Fighter Squadron, 33rd Fighter Group. On 10 November their P-40s were launched from the deck of the U.S.S. Chatango off Casablanca to participate in the Allied invasion of North Africa.

Hubbard scored his first victories on 15 January 1943 with the destruction of two Ju-88s. He splashed a Ju-87 on 1 Feruary and downed a Me-109 on 24 March. He was subsequently sent to the 20th Fighter Group, flying P-38s out of King's Cliffe, England. Promoted to Lieutenant Colonel he took over command of the group on 3 March 1944. Two weeks later, on 18 March, He shot down two Me-109s and was credited with a shared victory on another and one probable. Unfortunately, he was shot down by flak on the same mission and was captured by the Germans. Hubbard spent the remainder of the war in Stalag-Luft I in Barth, Germany.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/6940/hubbard.html

From Roger Freeman's 'The Mighty Eighth'

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/p-38-1.jpg

[ickysdad]

Kutschka,

Yes and some other P-38 pilots would say different they felt thier aircraft was every bit as good as the contemporaries.

[Kutscha]

Kutschka,

Yes and some other P-38 pilots would say different they felt thier aircraft was every bit as good as the contemporaries.

Sure ickysdad.

Btw, the spelling of the word is t-h-e-i-r. Don't want to feel the wraith of the Obergruppenführer of the Grammar and Spelling Police, do you?;)

[Stony]

Guys... Please!!

Let's be nice to each other.....

[merlin]

Guys... Please!!

Let's be nice to each other.....

Hear, Hear .. it's what sets this board apart from some others.

[GregP]

Hi guys,

I might remind the gentlemen that disagree with each other that the top-ranked U.S. Ace of WWII (Richard Bong)... oh yeah, and the second-ranked U.S. Ace of WWII (Tommy McGuire), BOTH flew P-38s. Y'a gotta' go to number 3 (David McCampbell of the US Navy in an F6F) to get away from the P-38.

So, as bad as the P-38 may seem to some, it is not without its defenders or its consumate Aces. In fact, the P-38 Aces were the best of WWII from the U.S.A., cold weather or theater notwithstanding.

And, the P-38 was there for the ENTIRE war, from when Pearl Harbor was bombed to when Japan surrendered and beyond.

C'mon, how bad can it BE?

Our P-38 at the Planes of Fame Museum is the most popular aircraft in our possession, possibly in hot contention with the Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero. The engines are dead reliable and do NOT contribute much to mechanical failures. In fact, our P-40 was down for more than a month (Allison) in late December but it was due to elevator trim tabs, NOT the Allison.

Sorry guys, the Lockheed P-38 was a Great Plane, by almost anyone's criteria, the very title and subject of this forum in the early days (possibly with Kutscha's disagreement ... :)).

[Lightning]

Please stop Lightning as your posts in this thread, and the Spitfire thread, are disrupting the office. We are laughing so hard we have stomach pains.

If you work in an office in close proximity to others, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they find your odious personality as repugnant as do I and probably quite a few others here. You couldn't even conduct yourself in a civil manner in this forum for a few minutes a week much less for eight hours a day in the presence of others.

For one thing, as to your colleagues' laughing, I can't believe that even you would be foolish enough to put your pitiful writing skills on display for all in the office to see--not to mention the verbal beating you are taking. If they're laughing, they're laughing at you, not with you.

For another thing, I hope for your clients' sakes that they are not receiving written reports and correspondence from you. If they are, they would really be laughing--except for the fact that they're paying good money for such a defective product.

And lastly, I seriously question your work ethics. Why are you writing all these ineffectual postings on company time??? Is your employer receiving a good day's work for a good day's pay? (And please don't embarrass yourself by using that old, overworked excuse that you do it on your lunch hour.) And, if you are the boss, God help the company!


Oh you caught the deliberate spelling error. Good for you Obergruppenführer of the Grammar and Spelling Police Dept.

DELIBERATE!--DELIBERATE! Now I am laughing, as is every person who reads this posting. This is the most CHILDISH cop-out to avoid admitting a lack of knowledge that I have EVER seen!!! This is rich. This says more about your character than I could have ever hoped to convey. Sun Tsu said in "The Art of War," When your enemy is destroying himself, do not interfere." I'll therefore go to my next point.

A coffee table book is a hardcover book that is intended to sit on a coffee table or similar surface in an area where guests sit and are entertained, thus inspiring conversation or alleviating boredom. They tend to be oversized and of heavy construction, since there is no pressing need for portability. Subject matter is generally confined to non-fiction, and is usually visually-oriented. Pages consist mainly of photographs and illustrations, accompanied by captions and small blocks of text, as opposed to long prose. Since they are aimed at anyone who might pick the book up for a light read, the analysis inside is often more basic and with less jargon than other books on the subject. Because of this, the term 'coffee table book' can be used pejoratively to indicate a superficial approach to the subject. (wiki)

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (A little more authoritative than "wiki"), defines "coffee-table book" as: "An expensive, lavishly illustrated an oversized book suitable for display on a coffee table."

I'd venture to say that most, if not every one, of those books that you called a "reliable reference" fits that description. Also note that neither "wiki" nor Webster says that the information in a coffee-table book is incorrect, only that it is "often more basic and with less jargon." Also note that the word "can," not "must" is used in the "wiki" definition.

Anyhow, the "coffe-table book discussion, like so many other dead issues you like to bring up in order to avoid the discussion at hand, is unimportant to the present issue(s).

Regarding your quotation of Lt Col Hubbard's remarks about the P-38, to quote Pres. Ronald Reagen, "There you go again!" You've gone and dredged up another old thread--ancient in this case. You hope to deflect the ongoing comments that are unmasking your over-abundance of supercilious character flaws by disparaging the Lightning. It's not going to work. What I have written about you would be equally true had the P-38 never existed.

[Lightning]

Sure ickysdad.

Btw, the spelling of the word is t-h-e-i-r. Don't want to feel the wraith of the Obergruppenführer of the Grammar and Spelling Police, do you?;)

There is quite a bit of difference between a simple typographical error (which ickysdad obviously made) and the glaring mistakes in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, etc., etc., etc. that you make, time after time, thread after thread.

EVERYONE here has made grammar and spelling errors on occasion, but, for the vast number of instances, yours are not errors--You just don't know any better.

As to your comment about my being part of the "Grammar and Spelling Police," my old English teacher told us that, in our high school, every teacher was an English teacher. And it was true--If you made a spelling or grammar error on an essay question on a math test, you lost points, even if your calculations were flawless.

I've carried that with me through college and into the working world. That's why I just can't stand by and watch someone--in this case you--butcher the English language while at the same time trying to put up the phony front of being a learned man.

In the off chance that you did make it to, and through, college, all indications are that you graduated "Non Compos Mentis."

[merlin]

What's the problem chill out - didn't you read message no 65.

Lightning: I could have taken offense at the patronising message in reply to my post, but why bother - if you want to go on a private 'crusade' by all means carry on. Otherwise calm down - it wouldn't do your blood pressure any good.

[Lightning]

Hi merlin,

What's the problem chill out - didn't you read message no 65.

Yes, I read #65, and I fully understand Stony's (and your) concerns over the way this thread has progressed. In order for you both to understand the reason, however, you would have to have followed numerous threads, going back over several years, in which I put up with a continuous string of snide, sarcastic, boorish, and sometimes downright insulting remarks from Kutscha. And, I am not the only one.

I did so because I wanted to maintain the decorum that you rightly described as being "what sets this board apart from some others." Had it not been for that, I would have put him in his place long ago. Aparently Kutscha takes restraint as being a sign of weakness. Now he knows better.

If you go back over the last four years since I joined this forum, you will find that I was a bit abrasive on one or two occasions at the very beginning. I was called down by long-time member Corsarius and reminded that these are "friendly" pages. He was perfectly right to do so, and I have since conducted myself accordingly. You will not find any threads in which I initiated any sarcasm or the like. And, you will not find any threads in which I puposefully disrespected anyone. But, there is a limit to one's patience, and Kutscha finally
exceeded that limit.

The foregoing comments bring me to respond to the next part of your posting. I must admit that it puzzles me:

Lightning: I could have taken offense at the patronising message in reply to my post, but why bother - if you want to go on a private 'crusade' by all means carry on. Otherwise calm down - it wouldn't do your blood pressure any good.

I went back over earlier postings in this thread, and I really can't see where I made any patronizing response to any of your postings. In #45, you quoted from Eagle in Flames. That was a quote that was to the point and perfectly in keeping with the original topic--I had absolutely no problem with that. I responded in #57 in which I directed you to earlier postings and threads in which the issues you were putting forth had already been completely covered. If you took that to mean that I was giving you short shrift, that was certainly not the case.

I noticed that you had been a member here for less than a year, so I knew you had not been around to participate in several very long threads, for example, the one on "Best Fighter," which ran on forever. I was just trying to avoid the long repetition of material that your posting could have led to. If this is what you were referring to as being patronizing, it most certainly was not meant that way.

Regards,

Lightning

[Kutscha]

Hi guys,

I might remind the gentlemen that disagree with each other that the top-ranked U.S. Ace of WWII (Richard Bong)... oh yeah, and the second-ranked U.S. Ace of WWII (Tommy McGuire), BOTH flew P-38s. Y'a gotta' go to number 3 (David McCampbell of the US Navy in an F6F) to get away from the P-38.

So, as bad as the P-38 may seem to some, it is not without its defenders or its consumate Aces. In fact, the P-38 Aces were the best of WWII from the U.S.A., cold weather or theater notwithstanding.

Gen. George Kenney was determined that the Southwest Pacific theater would produce the War's leading American ace. Certainly V Fighter Command had ample talent, but much of that was squandered in an ill-conceived effort to produce America's top gun. Throughout the War, Kenney gave roving commissions to several skilled, aggressive hunters: P-38 pilots Dick Bong, Tommy Lynch and Tommy McGuire and P-47 leader Neel Kearby. Only Bong survived combat, and he was killed in a P-80 near the War's end. But Bong was never a leader. Lynch and McGuire were excellent squadron commanders, and Kearby led the first P-47 group in the Pacific. In hindsight, their leadership abilities were squandered running up the score for Kenney and MacArthur.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200301/ai_n9190667/pg_5?tag=artBody;col1

Not hard to understand why and against Japanese a/c known to be 'fragile'.

The P-38 was actually third in US fighter kills against the Japanese. The F6F Hellcat was first, with 5,160 (via Frank Olynyk) or 5,163 (official USN/USMC records), the F4U was second, at 2,140 (via both), and the P-38 had 1,857 (1,700 in the Pacific and 157 in the CBI, both via Olynyk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:P-38_Lightning#P-38_in_the_PTO.2FCBI

The US Navy F6Fs and F4Us spent less time in contact/combat with the Japanese yet out scored the P-38. The P-38 being in combat at least a year more than the F6Fs and F4Us.

[GregP]

Hi Kutscha,

If Lynch, McGuire, and Kearby were squadron and group LEADERS, how were their talents as leaders wasted? Weren't they LEADING?

Non sequitur ... at least to me.

Bong was a well-known loner, and an EXCELLENT deflection shooter. His boss made use of that talent while minimizing the lack of leadership he displayed by simply not interfacing with others very often. That is, Kenney made use of a very talented pilot and didn't take issue with his lack of outward display of desire to lead a group of combat pilots. I don't see the validity of your contention, but you are certainly entitled to it.

So, as I stated, correctly it would seem, the top two U.S. fighter Aces of WWII flew the P-38 Lightning.

Alas, when I said the Lockheed P-38 Lightning was the top fighter (in the Pacific), I SHOULD have said top USAAC fighter ... the F6F and Corsair were U.S. NAVY units, as I'm very sure you know.

My mistake for omitting the obvious. :o

Beat me; make me feel cheap ... or at LEAST talk dirty to me ... I need to be abused.

[Lightning]

The P-38 was actually third in US fighter kills against the Japanese. The F6F Hellcat was first, with 5,160 (via Frank Olynyk) or 5,163 (official USN/USMC records), the F4U was second, at 2,140 (via both), and the P-38 had 1,857 (1,700 in the Pacific and 157 in the CBI, both via Olynyk).

The P-38 was 3rd in the number of kills of all US fighters during the war (when all theaters are considered). The numbers were (rounded numbers):

P-51: 5940 kills (But included many 8th AF ground kills)
F6F: 5200 kills
P-38: 3785 kills (Included few 8rh AF ground kills)
P-47: 3625 kills (Included some 8th AF ground kills)
P-40: 2255 kills
F4U: 2140 kills

As you can see, the Corsair ranked 6th. The above numbers fail to consider the following: Of the roughly 10,000 P-38s built, only about 8500 were combat fighters. The approximately 1500 (and maybe more) that were not available for air-air combat or ground-attack included YP-38s, F4/F5 photo recon planes, P-38M nightfighters (since they appeared in only the last few weeks of the war and never engaged in combat), and model 322 "Lightning I"s originally built for the British but used as trainers when they were subsequently rejected. There were also those "J"s and "L"s modified to the "Droop Snoot" and "Pathfinder" configurations.

Those 8500 Lightnings served all over the world--not only in combat theaters (and certainly not only against the Japanese) but in areas such as the Continental USA and the Panama Canal Zone where no combat was engaged in.

Compare those P-38 production numbers with those of the other prominent fighters mentioned above:
P-38: 10,000 (Again, only about 8500 of which were in the fighter configuration.)
P-51: 15,200
F6F: 12,200
P-47: 15,600
P-40: 13,700
F4U: 12,500
Except for the P-38, few of those other aircraft were modified for non-combat roles (photo recon, trainers, etc.), so almost all of them were used in combat.

The US Navy F6Fs and F4Us spent less time in contact/combat with the Japanese yet out scored the P-38. The P-38 being in combat at least a year more than the F6Fs and F4Us.

As to kills against Japanese aircraft, consider this: The F6F and F4U, although available in far greater numbers than the P-38 to begin with, were almost exclusively used against the Japanese and were employed relatively later in the war against a greatly weakened enemy. The great carrier-vs-carrier battles also provided a much greater target-rich environment than was ever available to the land-based fighters, and towards the end of the war, the japanese pilots were of a much lower caliber than at the beginning. The Lightnings, even though far fewer in number, were used much earlier and against both the Germans and Japanese when these enemies were at their strongest.

[GregP]

Great points, Lightning!

I am amazed that the true combat potential of the P-38 is even an issue. It is simply the deadliest twin-engine fighter employed by any combatant in WW2. And we have to put up with denegration of its capabilities ...

No other twin comes CLOSE ... except maybe the Mosquito.

The Mosquito was maybe more adaptable, but maybe not ... and is the ONLY twin that compares with the P-38 in terms of usefullness to its users.

Of the WWII twin fighters, I'd say the P-38 is EASILY first followed by the Mosquito. The Japanese had some great twins made in small numbers, but they were not well employed. The Ju-88 was a GREAT plane and a great night fighter without question, but could not survive against a P-38 or a Mosquito fighter variant.

After WWII, the Grumman F7F was very probably the BEST twin piston fighter ever made, but the day of the piston was numbered at that time and very few were built. Still ... the F7F could eat up a P-38 in combat.

[Red Admiral]

de Havilland Sea Hornet?

[Kutscha]

The Hellcat first saw action against the Japanese on 1 September 1943 when fighters off the USS Independence (CVL-22) shot down a Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

That is mid war for the Americans.

Did you include the British claims or are those just American claims? Not sure if the Soviets flew their 203 P-47s in combat though the Brazilians did fly combat with their 67. How many French and Mexican claims in the P-47?

The P-51 and F6F were used as PR a/c.

Do those production numbers include those a/c produced post war?

Are you saying those pilots that came from the States never flew P-51s before being assigned to a FG? There was 2283 P-51s and 2197 P-47s in the USA in Aug 1945.

Agh yes Greg, the F7F. :):):)

[Wuzak]

de Havilland Sea Hornet?

Or just the de Havilland Hornet?

As for the P-38 being the best twin engined fighter of WW2 I don't think anything else comes close. The Mosquito and Ju-88, mentioned by Greg, never really did the pure fighter role for which the P-38 was designed. Instead each was a bomber converted for use as night fighters and fighter bombers. There was one fighter version of the Mosquito, IIRC, which was a pure fighter, and that was the Mk II prototype. From then on it was NF or FB versions.

[Lightning]

The Hellcat first saw action against the Japanese on 1 September 1943 when fighters off the USS Independence (CVL-22) shot down a Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

That is mid war for the Americans.

The war still had 23.5 moths to go, and the great carrier battles in which the F6F participated were still to be fought.

Did you include the British claims or are those just American claims? Not sure if the Soviets flew their 203 P-47s in combat though the Brazilians did fly combat with their 67. How many French and Mexican claims in the P-47?

A quick check on line gave the following totals for F6F kills:

USN: 4947
USMC: 209
British Commonwealth (incuding FAA): 1321
Grand Total: 6477

An important point to remember is that many of those F6F kills were over Kamikazes that were in decrepid condition and flown by pilots who were only taught how to take off and follow a lead plane. Many of these planes were not only worn out, they were obsolete bombers that would have been no match for any monoplane fighter.


The P-51 and F6F were used as PR a/c.

They were used in much fewer numbers than the F4/F5 Lightnings, and they were armed fighters capable of aerial combat. They did score kills.

The photo Lightnings, on the other hand, did not carry guns (although a very few were allowed to retain one or two .50 cal, and this was done at unit level). They dispensed with their armament in order to carry an array of cameras that was impossible for the single-engine recon planes to carry. I think it was Gen. MacArthur who said, "Fighters win battles while photo/recon planes win wars."

Do those production numbers include those a/c produced post war?

Except for the F4U, none of the others were produced post war.(1) In the Corsair's case, I'm not sure, but, in any event, there were not that many produced post war. The F4U-7 was an exception and was built for the French Navy.(2)

Are you saying those pilots that came from the States never flew P-51s before being assigned to a FG? There was 2283 P-51s and 2197 P-47s in the USA in Aug 1945.

Many pilots did their fighter training in P-36s, P-39s,and P-40s (and maybe P-43s) and then were sent to their operational units.

As to the number of '47s and '51s in the States in August 1945, there were those that that were normally assigned to units there, those that were being transferred to the Pacific from Europe via the US, and those "war-weary" aircraft that had been relegated to training, and "hack" status. In addition to these, the aircraft factories were still turning out fighters in significant numbers after the war in Europe ended in early May 1945. Many had been slated for Europe but were now going to be sent to the Pacific. A significant number of these planes would have still been in the US undergoing acceptance testing or preparation for delivery when the war ended in August 1945. For example, the following monthly acceptance figures for P-51s during the final three months of the war were as follows:

June: 738
July; 603
Aug. 210
Total: 1551

These figures taken from the "AAF Statistical Digest" issued by the "Office of Statistical Control, Dec. 1945"


(1) Unless you want to include the relatively small number of F6Fs built between V-J Day and end-of-production in November 1945. I could not find how many were built during this time, but they were probably the residuals from the last production run. When the war ended, the contracts for thousands of warplanes were quickly cancelled. Some companies were allowed to complete the planes already on the assembly lines or those few remaining on earlier contracts.


(2) Since I was not sure whether the production numbers I gave earlier included post-war production of the F4U, I went back and checked those numbers; they do reflect post-war production. The post-war numbers I came up with are:

F4U-4: 800
F4U-5: 680
F4U-7: 94
AU-1 : 111
Total: 1685

This is somewhat more than I had thought, but when you consider that those aircraft were built over a period of seven years (1945-52), Vought's post-war production line was not all that busy.

Also, I stated that the F4U-7 was an exception. The reason was that it wasn't produced until 1952 and was only ordered by the French Navy--It never was in US service nor was it ever intended to be. It was a late comer and what amounted to an export version. At any rate, only 94 were delivered which is not that significant.

The same might have been said for the AU-1 (only 111 built and delivered in 1952), but it was intended for US use.

The number of Corairs built during the war was 10,815. This was greater than the total number of P-38 airframes built. The great majority of those Corsairs--including those delivered to the Commonwealth countries--were concentrated against the Japanese in the Pacific. They certainly overwhelmingly outnumbered the fighter variants of the Lightning in that area. (The same is true of the F6F.)

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

I agree with almost all your comments--except one (surprise!):

.
....Still ... the F7F could eat up a P-38 in combat.

Bite your tongue!!! :D

As an all-around warplane, it would be hard to argue against the F7F, but I think that the P-38 is much more competitive with the Tigercat than many would imagine.

As far as a strictly "down-and-dirty" dogfight is concerned, I will take the P-38. The Lightning was lighter, had maneuvering flaps for low-speeds and dive flaps for high-speed dives. It also had counter-rotating props which eliminated torque and "P-Factor" effects. Also, the F7F had some stability problems, and it was very dangerous in a spin.

The P-38 was known for its ability to outmaneuver many types of single-engine fighters. This capability is, as far as I have read, rarely, if ever, attributed to the Tigercat.

Speed
The F7F probably--but not certainly--was faster than the P-38. Many sources quote the speed of the P-38 J/L as being 414 mph, but Bodie states 443 mph as does Lockheed Martin. I have seen 460 mph quoted for the F7F, but most sources give a speed of around 435 mph.

One experimental application of compressibility (dive) flaps gave the F7F a critical mach number of 0.81, but the production aircraft did not have these flaps, so its critical mach number was 0.72--the same as the Lightning's.(1)

Climb
Both had a climb rate of between 4000 and 4500 fpm.

Ceiling
The P-38 had a service ceiling of 44,000 feet; that of the F7F was about 40,000 feet.

Range
The F7F had a longer range on internal fuel but not when drop tanks were carried.

Armament
The Tigercat had the advantage here, hands down--4x20mm and 4x.50 cal as opposed to 4x.50 cal and one 20mm for the Lightning.

Ordnance
Both could carry a torpedo. The P-38 could carry a 4000 lb bombload whereas the F7F could carry 2000 lbs. The P-38 mounted a total of ten HVAR rockets under its wings. (One configuration was tried with seven under each wing, but the five-per-wing layout was adopted.) I don't recall how many of these rockets the F7F could carry. (2)

I'm sure the above figures will differ somewhat depending on which sources are consulted, but I believe that, in the aggregate, they are pretty representative.

If, in fact, the Tigercat was a bit more potent than the Lightning, it must be remembered that the P-38 was a WWII fighter with a proven combat record whereas the F7F made its first flight 4 yrs. and 9 mos. after that of the Lightning and never got the chance to fight in WWII.

I believe that less than 400 Tigercats were built. Although they saw limited service in Korea, they obviously never saw widespread use in large numbers and in far-flung parts of the world under extreme conditions like the Lightning did. Who knows what problems these rigors would have revealed?

(1) The P-38 pilot manual placards the dive speed at mach 0.68. Kelly Johnson said it was actually between 0.68 and 0.70. Tony LeVier actually tested a P-38J to about 0.72 without mishap or structural damage.

(2) The F7F carried six rockets--three on each outer-wing panel.

Regards,
Lightning

[Wuzak]

I think that the Hornet would be a better match for the P-38 in terms of close combat, and it was faster than the P-38 - max of 472mph is often quoted, prototypes managing 491mph (presumably without armament and equipment).

[ickysdad]

Alot of the disputes over the P-38's speed maybe attributed to wether the 414 MPH figure was at Military Power rather then War Emergency Power. The P-38F used the V-1710-49/53 which only had Military Power of 1325 HP MAX and 1000 HP Normal. The P-38G used V-1710-51/55 which provided 1325 HP and 1100 HP Normal. The P-38H used V-1710-89/91 which provided 1100 HP Normal, 1240 HP Military ,and 1600 HP WEP. The P-38J used the V-1710-89/91 the same as the P-38H. The P-38L used the V-1710-111/113 which provided 1425 HP Military and a WEP rating of 1750 HP. On Mike Williams "Spitfire Performance" webiste there is one section where the P-38L's engines were equipped with overboost as to where thier engines provided 2000 HP.

[ickysdad]

The P-38J which had lower rated engines then the "L" but which wieghed basically the same performed as follows...
At 16,597 lbs. achieved 421.5 MPH at 25,800' & 345 MPH at Sea Level while pulling 60" on 100 grade fuel. It also achieved 4000 FPM in initial climb taking 6.49 minutes to 23,400'. Now we can only imagine it pulling 70-75" as it was capable of on 44-1 fuel.

[GregP]

Hi Lightning,

Great comparison, but I'll stick with the F7F when it was flown as a single seat day fighter. That takes NOTHING away from my love for the P-38.

Let's take the J model. It is normally quoted as 1,425 hp per side with Allison V-1710-89 / 91 engines. max weight was 21,612 pounds for a power loading of 6.8 pounds per HP (at max weight). Rate fo climb is usally quoted about 3,150 feet per minute. Wing loading was 35.8 pounds per square foot.

The Grumman F7F is usually quoted as having 2,100 hp per side using P&W R-2800-34W engines. Max weight was 25,720 pounds for a power loading at max weight of 6.1 pounds per HP. Rate of climb is usually quoted about 4,500 feet per minute. Wing loading was 56.5 pounds per square foot.

I'd say the F7F easily outclimbs the P-38J, which had the new radiators with more cooling capacity. The wing loading says the F7F is about 18 - 20% more maneuverable than the P-38J, and I belive it. The turning flaps on the P-38 may or may not make up that large a difference in wing loading. If they did, then they were about equal. If not, advantage F7F.

The P-38 was a superb aircraft at 1,100 hp per side. It started to get dicey at 1,425 hp per side due to lack of cooling. At 1,600 hp per side, engine failure was only minutes away no matter what the situation was.

As for the Hornet / Sea Hornet, I love it and would gladly offer it up as the best twin fighter ever with very little fight. But not without a nod to the mighty Grumman F7F Tigercat.

[ickysdad]

It seems the P-38 was used at the ratings I showed above. As far as the wieghts go 21,000 lbs was for the ferry range with 310 lbs of drop tanks and over 6200 lbs.(about 1034 gallons) of fuel. As a normal interceptor we're talking along the lines of a 230 gallon load of fuel and an all up wieght of around 16,000+ lbs. Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" doesn't give any info on the F7F so just are the loadouts for the F7F? I mean like empty wieght,basic wieght which is empty wieght plus armament installation ,the gunsight,gun camera, armor/BP glass,oxygen equipment, and provisions for frop tanks while the pilot,useable oil, gun ammo, and fuel go with disposable load. So basic wieght plus disposable load equals gross wieght right? Dean's has breakdowns of most USAAF/USN fighters from the war but not the F7F.
Another thing is how can the F7F be more manuverable then the P-38J when it has over 20lbs. more wing loading per square foot ?

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

You're always good for an informative and lively debate. Just a few points:


Let's take the J model. It is normally quoted as 1,425 hp per side with Allison V-1710-89 / 91 engines. max weight was 21,612 pounds for a power loading of 6.8 pounds per HP (at max weight). Rate fo climb is usally quoted about 3,150 feet per minute. Wing loading was 35.8 pounds per square foot.

As ickysdad brought out, the empty weight of the F7F just about equalled the loaded (not max.) weight of the P-38J. It was also not far off that of the P-38L. This, together with the maneuvering flaps, dive flaps, and counter-rotating propellers, gives the Lightning the edge.

As to the 3150 fpm climb rate for the P-38J, that is the approximate average or sustained rate, depending on subvariant of the J-model. On the low side, some references give the time to climb to 20,000 feet as 7.0 minutes. this would give an average of 2860 fpm. The figures given by ickysdad (i.e. 23,400feet in 6.49 min. which, if my memory serves me, are the results of an actuall test as given in Warren Bodie's book) yield an average climb rate of 3600 fpm. The initial climb rate is actually 4000 fpm as stated by ickysdad--still 500 fpm less than that of the F7F, but very competitive.

I'd say the F7F easily outclimbs the P-38J, which had the new radiators with more cooling capacity. The wing loading says the F7F is about 18 - 20% more maneuverable than the P-38J, and I belive it. The turning flaps on the P-38 may or may not make up that large a difference in wing loading. If they did, then they were about equal. If not, advantage F7F.

Regarding this, I have the same question as stated by--again--ickysdad: "Another thing is how can the F7F be more manuverable then the P-38J when it has over 20lbs. more wing loading per square foot ?"


The P-38 was a superb aircraft at 1,100 hp per side. It started to get dicey at 1,425 hp per side due to lack of cooling. At 1,600 hp per side, engine failure was only minutes away no matter what the situation was.

The "J" had no cooling problems at 1425 hp--that was the "H," due to the leading-edge intercoolers. The J´s engines had a WEP of 1600 hp for at least five minutes, and the "L" had up to 1725 WEP for at least five minutes using the same cooling system.

Regards,
Lightning

[GregP]

Oops, got the wing loading backwards! Somebody, slap me .

Now that IS emabrassing ... :o ... and let me drink less beer.

I'd still take the F7F, but it would be more of a hit-and-run type fight with the F7F outclimbing the P-38 and swooping down for passes. The P-38 might zoom with the F7F, but the F7F would outclimb the P-38 once out of the zoom climb arena.

As for battle damage, the R-2800 is legendary in its ability to absorb punishment ans still get home.

[ickysdad]

The P-38J using 44-1 fuel and pulling 70-75" could climb at something like 4600+ FPM. The P-38L with higher rated engines should do even better.

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

Oops, got the wing loading backwards! Somebody, slap me .

Now that IS emabrassing ... :o ... and let me drink less beer.

That occurred to me (not the slap), but I was too lazy to check the math. I didn't have my calculator with me. (It's terrible what technology is doing to our hard-learned skills.) Go ahead and have one on me Greg; you're just as sharp as ever.

I'd still take the F7F, but it would be more of a hit-and-run type fight with the F7F outclimbing the P-38 and swooping down for passes. The P-38 might zoom with the F7F, but the F7F would outclimb the P-38 once out of the zoom climb arena.

On the other hand, if the Lightning attacks from above, I don't think that 500 fpm climb advantage is enough to catch a Lightning in a zoom climb--especially when the "Cat" is starting from level flight. By the time he would begin closing the gap, he'd be running out of steam. Remember, the Lightning has about a 4000 ft ceiling advantage. In this scenario, it would be the P-38 that would be setting up for another pass.

As for battle damage, the R-2800 is legendary in its ability to absorb punishment ans still get home.

Here is one point on which we are in complete agreement. And the Lightning would not appreciate those four .50s and those four 20 mm cannon if they were brought to bear. OUCH!!!



Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

The P-38J using 44-1 fuel and pulling 70-75" could climb at something like 4600+ FPM. The P-38L with higher rated engines should do even better.

You're saving me a lot of typing! Good point. The Lightning's earlier engines coudn't take this, but by war's end, improvements had been made. Another point can be made here. Some of the power limitations that were imposed on the Lightning were a bit too conservative. Some of the more experienced P-38 pilots--Cass Hough comes to mind--were able to get full power out of the P-38H's upgraded engines without mishap. These engines had been power-restricted because the "H" still had the leading-edge intercoolers. Less-skilled pilots were either unable or afraid to do this.

Regards,
Lightning