Jump to content

P-38 Lightning


Recommended Posts

the war was a joint effort so no one country deserves all the credit.

 

Exactly. But since we're getting into the "my fave plane w0N t3H w4R" thing, I up the stakes and claim that the IL-2 won the war :D

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, credit is due to the relative inferiority of japanese designs. bong was a poor shot who made his kills pointblank and his luck wouldnt have held against the faster and properly armored aircraft of the eto.

Bong considered himself a poor shot; nobody who served with him is known to have agreed with him on that score. Those who served against him rarely had the time to form an opinion.

 

He was just a humble guy (and a perfectionist; he thought he should make every shot). Japanese fighter aircraft designers consciously sacrificed speed and armor for acceleration and agility; they were notoriously 'active' targets, and it was rare to be able to sneak up on one and hit him 'pointblank' (their bombers were another story). To take out a Zero or Oscar before 1944, you most often had to use deflection and hit the front half of the aircraft (where the engine, pilot and fuel was). 'Snap' shooting was the norm in that theater, especially in the first two years of the Pacific war.

 

The P-38 was unusual among American fighters in that all its armament was nose mounted; 1x20mm cannon and 4x.50" machine guns packed close together, so it could hit you very hard in a very short burst at long or short range and convergence was not as critical a factor for aiming. German and Italian pilots in the Med were very wary of entering that cone of fire regardless of what they thought of the P-38's other qualities.

 

The P-38 was a pre-radar design, so it was designed to have excellent acceleration and climb at all altitudes due to its turbosuperchargers; it could be argued that when the United States entered the war, the P-38 was the most advanced fighter in the world--unfortunately, it was still essentially an immature design and Lockheed and the Army Air Force handled its development and manufacture very poorly, resulting in flaws that persisted throughout its wartime career (poor cockpit heating, horrendous control and instrument ergonomics, key electrical and engine components lacking redundancy or protection, among other faults). Good maintenance was unquestionably a factor for units in the ETO, but early units in the Med and the Pacific were veteran Lightning groups with good maintenance support and prewar experienced pilots who got a lot of 'spoon feeding' from Lockheed before they went overseas, unlike the 55th & 20th FGs, who came to Britain in '43 and were given support units already in theater.

 

Compressability was a factor at high altitudes, and there were reports that it could go into compressability in level flight at extreme high alts, but it was not a factor until you were around 24,000 ft and non-existent below 20,000 ft. Finally, it was never available in the desired (or needed) numbers until the Mustang and Thunderbolt had already matched or exceeded its capabilities (and they were always available in greater numbers--and cheaper).

 

Even so, it had tremendous range, great hitting power, excellent vertical maneuverability, a shockingly good sustained turning circle (poor roll though), and in the hands of a good pilot familiar with its quirks was a deadly opponent in any theater of the war. Oh, and that is the other thing--it took two or three times as long to master the P-38 as a Spitfire, Mustang or Thunderbolt. It was easy to fly, but it was hard to get everything out of it without a lot of flying hours in type, according to every authoritative source.

 

Hope this helps clarify the picture.

 

cheers

 

horseback

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twin engine management would be an interesting advance in DCS prop aircraft.

Might lead to a flyable B17 who knows ?

 

Would be an instant buy for me. Love the P-38.

  • Like 1

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy and I've had both.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where did I dispute that?

 

well you brought up the land war in the east ;p, not sure if you meant the allies taking on japan or the russians taking on the ussr, so i went with the latter stating that there would be no land war in the east if it wasn't for america's economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it wasn't for america's economy.

 

I was replying to someone who said that the Allies would've lost the war without the P-38, which for various reasons is completely untrue.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-38 is one of the most interesting & mis-understood aircraft of the war IMO. It's not better than a P51 D in really any situation, but that isn't the point of DCS in my mind anyway. Personally I would prefer to have it over the P-47.

 

I would LOVE to have it included in DCS, as really the big 3 fighters for America in the ETO were the P-51, P-47 and the P-38 for the ETO. As far as army fighters goes it's the most important type in the PTO. P-38 L would fit in very well to the landscape in Normandy, though.

 

Even if it is outmatched by other fighters in the ETO (mostly because of the dive rate vs the competition). It would be a great fighter-bomber addition.

 

Dual engine prop for DCS? Sign me up, as more management is better for the DCS pilot IMO. I mean I would rather fly the P-51 than the German craft just because of the little bit of extra engine management it has. P-38 has a lot more stuff going on in the cockpit for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The L version has counter rotating engines doesn't it? It does not use a gearbox for that, the engines turn counter-clockwise and clockwise.

 

All versions of the Lightning used counter rotating props, and there were different designations for the 'handed' V-1710 engines (for instance, V-1710-27 and V-1710-29). However, my understanding is that the gearbox was considered part of the engine, and the gearbox was where the direction of the prop spin was determined. Allison was not happy about having to make the specialized engines for the P-38 at first, because it made their overall production numbers appear lower; of course, once the Lightning established itself in the Pacific they were all too happy to take as much credit for it as they could.

 

cheers

 

horseback

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I am talking about the engine! not the gearbox, not the prop! there was a variant where an engine would turn clockwise and other would do the opposite without a gearbox, that's what I am talking about.

 

I've heard that a few days ago, I was just asking if that was true or not.

 

Thanks

 

I have done a little research, and I have erred.

 

According to the Wikipedia site for the Allison V-1710 engine, "(a)nother key feature of the V-1710 design was its ability to turn the output shaft clockwise or counter-clockwise by assembling the engine with the crankshaft turned end-for-end, by installing an idler gear in the drive train to the supercharger, camshafts, and accessories, installing a starter turning the proper direction, and re-arranging the ignition wiring on the right side to accommodate a changed firing order. No change to the oil pump nor coolant pump circuits was needed."

 

My primary source for all things P-38 (Warren Bodie's masterwork) is in storage, and I was working from memory (which is somewhat flawed on occasion :music_whistling:).

 

Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. That sounds like a pretty strange way of doing things from a logistics point of view. For quick field replacements, you'd need to stock up on two different types of engines instead of just one. Conversion from RH to LH rotation (or vice versa) may be possible, but it's a lot more time consuming than just fitting a different reduction gearbox to a common engine type. Does anyone know the rationale behind this design choice? You would need one extra gear in the reduction gearbox in order to reverse the direction of rotation, which does (at least theoretically) result in a slight increase in power loss in the gearbox, but I can't imagine that it makes much of a difference in actual use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Like 1

We are Virtual Pilots, a growing International Squad of pilots, we fly Allies in WWII and Red Force in Korea and Modern combat. We are recruiting like minded people of all Nationalities and skill levels.



http://virtual-pilots.com/

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the lightning incredibly good in the dive? I can't remember where, but I recall reading that that was it's ace in the hole in dogfights.

 

Below about 20,000 ft/6100m, compressability was not a factor and the P-38 (like most US built fighters) had a very good acceleration into a dive. In the Pacific, much of the aerial combat took place at lower alts and this trait was taken full advantage of by Lightning pilots. This may be where you heard this.

 

Above that altitude, the P-38 had severe problems entering a dive until the dive brakes were installed outside the nacelles in the J/L models. This would have made it very competitive in the ETO (ignoring other issues the type suffered in that theater). Unfortunately, the conversion kits for the 8th AF Lightnings were (quite avoidably) delayed by a Spitfire pilot who mistook the C-54 delivering the kits for an FW 200 in May of 1944...

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below about 20,000 ft/6100m, compressability was not a factor and the P-38 (like most US built fighters) had a very good acceleration into a dive. In the Pacific, much of the aerial combat took place at lower alts and this trait was taken full advantage of by Lightning pilots. This may be where you heard this.

 

Above that altitude, the P-38 had severe problems entering a dive until the dive brakes were installed outside the nacelles in the J/L models. This would have made it very competitive in the ETO (ignoring other issues the type suffered in that theater). Unfortunately, the conversion kits for the 8th AF Lightnings were (quite avoidably) delayed by a Spitfire pilot who mistook the C-54 delivering the kits for an FW 200 in May of 1944...

 

cheers

 

horseback

 

I believe the P38J-25 had the brakes too, which would have entered service at a similar time frame as the delivery of upgrades . The L model certainly did and that was introduced in June of 44.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entering service is not quite the same thing as getting to the ETO or the Pacific in useful numbers during WWII. The first P-51B left the production lines in May or June of 1943, but the first combat mission for the type was in Nov/Dec of 1943. P-38s were also produced in the LA area (Burbank?) and had to be tested there, then dismantled, packaged and shipped via rail to an east coast port, where they were loaded onto the decks of (large) cargo ships or jeep carriers and a few weeks later would arrive at Liverpool, where after a decent interval, they would be unpacked and assembled, tested and placed in the pipeline to an active 8th or 9th AF unit.

 

It would take between one and a half to three months to get a batch of Lightnings from California to East Anglia, where the Lightning units were mostly based. This is why the loss of the retrofit kits in May of '44 was so critical; had they been delivered on time, P-38s in the ETO would have been far more effective during the Invasion period.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All versions of the Lightning used counter rotating props, and there were different designations for the 'handed' V-1710 engines (for instance, V-1710-27 and V-1710-29). However, my understanding is that the gearbox was considered part of the engine, and the gearbox was where the direction of the prop spin was determined. Allison was not happy about having to make the specialized engines for the P-38 at first, because it made their overall production numbers appear lower; of course, once the Lightning established itself in the Pacific they were all too happy to take as much credit for it as they could.

 

cheers

 

horseback

 

Not 100% correct ..... the Early model Lightnings supplied to the RAF (from a French contract) did not have counter rotating props or turbo superchargers for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...