How good was the P-38 in the European theater?
Branek
in
WW2 both flew P-38's (Bong and McGuire) and according to wikipedia:
The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other
USAAF fighter.
, but how did it do in the European theatre? It seems to me the P-38L had a
good
top speed, fair armament, unmatched maximum dive speed and amazing ROC.
Could it be said that the best twin-engined fighter of the war was the
P-38L?
David Thornley
Branek <barron...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>It seems to me the P-38 dominated the Pacific theater -- the two ace of aces
>in
>WW2 both flew P-38's (Bong and McGuire) and according to wikipedia:
>The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other
>USAAF fighter.
>, but how did it do in the European theatre?
To give a quick summary:
The P-38 had virtues, but it also had problems, which showed up more
in Europe than in the Pacific. It was a product of California, and
had some teething problems in colder areas like Europe (unlike most
areas in the Pacific war). It was considerably more expensive than
the P-51, and required more training and expertise to fight in
effectively.
These limited its European service to some extent, although if not
for the P-51 it presumably would have seen lots of service as the
standard long-range bomber escort.
>Could it be said that the best twin-engined fighter of the war was the
>P-38L?
>
I would say that it was the best twin-engined day fighter of the war.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Yau
Germany, they slaughtered the German defence fighters because they had never
experienced anything like it. But after awhile they developed counter
measures against the P-38.
The Amaurotean Capitalist
<barron...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>It seems to me the P-38 dominated the Pacific theater -- the two ace of aces
>in WW2 both flew P-38's (Bong and McGuire) and according to wikipedia:
>The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other
>USAAF fighter., but how did it do in the European theatre?
Not so well; aerodynamic problems hitting the compressability limits
of the airframe in high-altitude dives as well as engine output and
reliability were critical problems for the pre-L models of the P-38.
As a result it had been allocated to the 9th Air Force in the ETO for
lower-level tactical operations by the time the L model with dive
brakes to overcome compressability problems appeared in June 1944.
The P-38 was dominant in the Pacific, but mainly because it had the
range needed before the longer-range variants of other fighters (the
P-47N and P-51D) appeared to give it any competition. It certainly
outclassed the P-39 and P-40 on performance grounds as well as range.
>It seems to me the P-38L had a
>good top speed, fair armament, unmatched maximum dive speed and amazing ROC.
The L didn't have an 'unmatched dive speed', at least compared to the
Spitfire, Thunderbolt or Mustang. It used dive flaps to reduce
velocity in the dive and thus avoid hitting the compressability limit
of the airframe. The other fighters I've mentioned could all exceed
the maximum dive speed of the P-38L.
>Could it be said that the best twin-engined fighter of the war was the
>P-38L?
In my opinion, yes.
Gavin Bailey
--
I have enough of Windows error message which say "Intelligent life
not detected at keyboard." You hear me good Bill! Not mess Eastern
devil warrior. Yeah like Jackie Chan. Worse Bart Kwan-En.
- Bart Kwan En
William Black
news:fcal4t$k8n$1...@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
> Apparently when the P-38 made its debut in Europe escorting bombers into
> Germany, they slaughtered the German defence fighters because they had
> never experienced anything like it.
Well, except for the P.38s the RAF had, or were they never considered
combat worthy because the superchargers were never fitted?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
The Amaurotean Capitalist
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, except for the P.38s the RAF had, or were they never considered
>combat worthy because the superchargers were never fitted?
The British only ever got three Lightning I's (without turbochargers -
they had mechanical superchargers) for testing in the spring and
summer of 1942. None of them were ever used operationally.
Gavin Bailey
--
Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> measures against the P-38.
For example Adolf Galland measured the P-38 as the easiest of the Allied
fighter to handle.
Alan Meyer
fighter pilot. He told me he had flown both the P-38 and the
P-51 and preferred the 51 because it had more acceleration.
(He said the P-51 had more "oomph".)
I don't know if he had much time in the P-38, but he was a very
good pilot and said he had four kills before being himself
brought down in a collision with an Me-109 and spending the
rest of the war in a prison camp.
Alan
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>In the early 1970's I belonged to a flying club with an ex-WWII
>fighter pilot. He told me he had flown both the P-38 and the
>P-51 and preferred the 51 because it had more acceleration.
>(He said the P-51 had more "oomph".)
>
>I don't know if he had much time in the P-38 . . .
One thing that had little to do with performance in the air was the
fact that even at the height of production, they almost hand built.
Several systems in the a/c did not lend themselves to mass production
methods of the time.
I have heard, from people who's opinion I respect, that starting with
the late "J's" the P-38 was the equal of any a/c flying in air to air
combat provided it was flown by a well trained pilot. I suppose that
was another issue as well. It was not an easy a/c to lean to fly well.
Much more complex then any of the single engine fighters. Also, a few
more cockpit controls to manage during combat.
Bill Shatzer
> "Yau" <snip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fcal4t$k8n$1...@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
>>Apparently when the P-38 made its debut in Europe escorting bombers into
>>Germany, they slaughtered the German defence fighters because they had
>>never experienced anything like it.
> Well, except for the P.38s the RAF had, or were they never considered
> combat worthy because the superchargers were never fitted?
The RAF never really had any P-38s. They ordered 143 Lightning Is which
were essentially P-38Es without the turbosuperchargers but only 3 were
actually delivered to the Brits.
Testing demonstrated their deficiencies as a combat aircraft and the
remainder of the order was diverted to the USAAF where they were used as
trainers under the designation P-322.
SFAIK, none of the Lightning Is or P-322s were ever used operationally.
There was a further British order for 524 supercharged Lightning IIs
which were were equivalent to P-38F/Gs but none were ever delivered to
the RAF. All of the 495 eventually built were retained by the USAAF as
P-38Fs and Gs.
Cheers,
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> I have heard, from people who's opinion I respect, that starting with
> the late "J's" the P-38 was the equal of any a/c flying in air to air
> combat provided it was flown by a well trained pilot. I suppose that
> was another issue as well. It was not an easy a/c to lean to fly well.
> Much more complex then any of the single engine fighters. Also, a few
> more cockpit controls to manage during combat.
I wonder how much Lockheed's decision to go with a control yoke rather
than a joystick contributed to that.
SFAIK, the P-38 was the only WW2 fighter to use that arrangement for its
flight controls. The transition from joystick aircraft to the yoked P-38
couldn't have been seamless.
Cheers,
The Amaurotean Capitalist
<bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Testing demonstrated their deficiencies as a combat aircraft and the
>remainder of the order was diverted to the USAAF where they were used as
>trainers under the designation P-322.
Yes, but the RAF rejected the Lightning I at the end of 1941, long
before they tested one in the UK. The USAAF converted most of their
ex-Lightning I P-332's to P-332-II standard by installing
unturbocharged V-1710-F engines instead of the original V-1710-C15's.
Gavin Bailey
--
WinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before
for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En
deem...@aol.com
> the late "J's" the P-38 was the equal of any a/c flying in air to air
> combat provided it was flown by a well trained pilot.
Not to mention....one engine running rough/shot up/otherwise out
of commission? Shut it down and fly home on the other.....weren't many
other fighters that could do that.
deem...@aol.com
> I wonder how much Lockheed's decision to go with a control yoke rather
> than a joystick contributed to that.
>
> SFAIK, the P-38 was the only WW2 fighter to use that arrangement for its
> flight controls. The transition from joystick aircraft to the yoked P-38
> couldn't have been seamless.
I'd never thought of that, but it's probably true. Although, I
wonder how many pilots transitioning to Lightnings from P-39/P-400s or
P-40s really complained?
mike
> Much more complex then any of the single engine fighters. Also, a few
> more cockpit controls to manage during combat.
That was a failing of most US fighters, across the board: had fewer
automatic mixture and boost controls than the RAF, Luftwaffe,
and even IJN types had. While it allowed a good pilot to get the
very most out of an engine, an average or poor one, less
performance and far more failures from burned up engines.
**
mike
**
Batavus
>
> Not to mention....one engine running rough/shot up/otherwise out
> of commission? Shut it down and fly home on the other.....weren't many
> other fighters that could do that.
A twin engine fighter with one engine out of commission is a sitting
duck, on paper it is an advantage, in reality the pilot needed a lot
of luck in that case.
Batavus Droogstoppel
mike
>
> Not to mention....one engine running rough/shot up/otherwise out
> of commission? Shut it down and fly home on the other.....weren't many
> other fighters that could do that.
Not always, only the left engine was fitted with a generator. That
goes,
so does electrical system, including your pitch control on the
remaining
one, which really put a limit on flying home
**
mike
**
Keith B. Rosenberg
> SFAIK, the P-38 was the only WW2 fighter to use that arrangement for its
> flight controls. The transition from joystick aircraft to the yoked P-38
> couldn't have been seamless.
Not uniquely, but unusually the P-38, had a tricycle landing gear and
with its greater power was, in many ways, a transition to jets.
deem...@aol.com
> A twin engine fighter with one engine out of commission is a sitting
> duck, on paper it is an advantage, in reality the pilot needed a lot
> of luck in that case.
But at least you had a chance.....which pilot was better off....in
a P-38 with one engine out, or in a P-51 with one engine out?
deem...@aol.com
> Not always, only the left engine was fitted with a generator. That
> goes,
> so does electrical system, including your pitch control on the
> remaining
> one, which really put a limit on flying home
How many Mustangs, T-bolts, Spits, Tempests, etc had a chance of
flying home with one engine out?
Brad Meyer
>On Sep 14, 1:14 am, Brad Meyer <bradm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Much more complex then any of the single engine fighters. Also, a few
>> more cockpit controls to manage during combat.
>
>That was a failing of most US fighters, across the board: had fewer
>automatic mixture and boost controls than the RAF, Luftwaffe,
>and even IJN types had.
If you want to call that a failing. You could call it a virtue. Simple
to operate meant that more pilots could reach proficiency more
quickly.
All the countries you mentioned, Britain, Japan, and Germany, selected
very closely for fighter pilots -- at least pre war and early war. One
did not have to be a college grad and/or "regular" military (or even
an officer) to get a cockpit in the US. Same thing applies to the a/c
they built. While the others will building Jaguars and Porshes and
RX7's with wings the US was building Plymouths and Fords with wings --
big heavy sturdy powerful things. Besides being able to haul lots of
weapons, they did a good job of bringing their pilots back. Many US
pilots got themselves shot up early in thier careers but made it back
and were able to make use and profit from the experience.
Bill Shatzer
But that's the wrong way to analyze the problem.
All other things being equal, doubling the number of engines doubles the
probability of losing one, either through battle damage (twice as many
places a hit might disable an engine) or through mechanical failure
(twice as many critical parts which could fail).
If the chances of getting home in a single engined aircraft with one
engine out are zero and the chances of getting home in a twin-engined
aircraft with one engine out are 40%, you're still better off in the
single engined aircraft as the chances of a engine failure are half the
chances of such a failure in a twin-engined aircraft.
I'd think an extensive analysis of the probabilities of losing an engine
in a P-38 versus the probabilities of an engine failure in contemporary
single-engined fighters and of the probabilities of a P-38 making it
home (or at least to a friendly airbase) with one engine out would be
required before one could claim that a pilot "was better off" in the
twin-engined fighter.
It's not at all a foregone conclusion.
Cheers,
Andrew Clark
> How many Mustangs, T-bolts, Spits, Tempests, etc had a chance of
> flying home with one engine out?
You may as well ask how many P-38 could fly home with two engines out, like
the Lancaster or B-17 could. It's a meaningless comparison.
Batavus
>
> How many Mustangs, T-bolts, Spits, Tempests, etc had a chance of
> flying home with one engine out?
None, but I doubt that a P38 limping home on one engine (presumably
the "right" one, which would be the port one, as otherwise he would
have no electricity) had a chance at all if this happens over enemy
territory.
Enemy pilots would fall over the lame duck as it promised an easy
kill.
Batavus Droogstoppel
deem...@aol.com
> You may as well ask how many P-38 could fly home with two engines out, like
> the Lancaster or B-17 could. It's a meaningless comparison.
Since we were comparing fighters, it's not meaningless. Having two
engines was an advantage over those with one.....did it make the P-38
better? No, but it was something to consider. Kind of like how a P-47
could take more damage than a P-51....then we'd have to argue which
was more likely to take damage.
deem...@aol.com
> None, but I doubt that a P38 limping home on one engine (presumably
> the "right" one, which would be the port one, as otherwise he would
> have no electricity) had a chance at all if this happens over enemy
> territory.
>
> Enemy pilots would fall over the lame duck as it promised an easy
> kill.
>
That's nowhere near a given. Many damaged fighters made it home.
Maybe the damaged fighter took flak damage. Maybe it had undamaged
escorts. Maybe it could slip into a cloud bank. Maybe the German
fighters kept after the bombers after putting the fighter out of
action.
All I'm saying is having two engines was an advantage over only one
where engine damage was concerned.
deem...@aol.com
> It's not at all a foregone conclusion.
The only foregone conclusion is the pilot of the single engined
fighter is not getting back.
Jamie
a Luftwaffe pilot during WWII. He was shot down a couple of times by
P-38s with RAF markings on missions against Malta. He had a pretty
high respect for them. He was flying an Me-109 (don't know which model
or what year).
David Thornley
very real advantages to having more than one engine.
However, I was at a museum several years ago where they had a P-38.
The guide had talked to former P-38 pilots, and said that one big
problem was bailing out. Apparently, the standard idea was to climb
out of the cockpit and drop from the trailing edge of the wing, or
to invert the aircraft, but most pilots figured they weren't going to
get out of it. (Any more reliable sources of information on that?)
It was an interesting aircraft, but it did have problems.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Tero P. Mustalahti
> I would say that it was the best twin-engined day fighter of the war.
It was also the only operational* twin piston-engined day fighter, which
did not have major problems against single engined fighters in combat.
Thus it was also the best...
* The Do 335 was not really operational.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tero P. Mustalahti
However, it is questionable whether Galland ever encountered any of the
later models with combat flaps flown by an experienced P-38 pilot.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tero P. Mustalahti
> While the others will building Jaguars and Porshes and
> RX7's with wings the US was building Plymouths and Fords with wings --
> big heavy sturdy powerful things.
Car analogies as usually bad and in this case as well. The Spitfire and
Bf 109 certainly were not the equivalent of a Jaguar or a Porsche.
Especially the Bf 109 was a relatively small and simple fighter and
quite well suited for mass production, which was rare for German weapons
of the late 1930s. It wasn't particularly fragile either. The Spitfire
had its thin wing, but otherwise it was hardly an overly sophisticated
sports car either.
> Besides being able to haul lots of
> weapons, they did a good job of bringing their pilots back.
Those things are not necessarily related to each other or the size of
the fighter. For example Soviet fighters were small and typically could
not carry a lot of weapons, but they were very well armored and had
other survivability measures. In fact the I-153 and late model I-16
fighters were one of the first production fighters with actual armor to
protect the pilot and Soviets also introduced self-sealing fuel tanks
among the first. The LaGG-3 and La-5/7 were fitted with a system that
injected inert exhaust gases to the fuel tank in order to reduce the
probability of a fuel fire.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Rich Rostrom
>But that's the wrong way to analyze the problem.
>
>All other things being equal, doubling the number of engines doubles the
>probability of losing one, either through battle damage (twice as many
>places a hit might disable an engine) or through mechanical failure
>(twice as many critical parts which could fail).
>
>If the chances of getting home in a single engined aircraft with one
>engine out are zero and the chances of getting home in a twin-engined
>aircraft with one engine out are 40%, you're still better off in the
>single engined aircraft as the chances of a engine failure are half the
>chances of such a failure in a twin-engined aircraft.
Idon't think so.
First, the chance of having one engine damaged
by attack is not linearly proportional to the
number of engines. If this was true, a four-
engine bomber would be as likely to have two
engines shot out as a twin-engine bomber was
to lose one engine.
Yes, engine target area is doubled. But an
attacking fighter will shoot at the center
of mass of the target. If the target has one
engine, that engine will be in his bull's-eye.
If it has two engines, both will be in the
field of fire, but they can't both be in the
center of concentration.
Or consider flak: when a shell bursts near
a multi-engine plane, it's not likely to be
the same distance from all engines. Let's
guess that the "target" envelope is within
10 meters of an engine, and that the engine
is a spherical blob 1 m across.
For a single-engine plane that means a
target envelope that is a sphere 10.5
meters in radius. For a twin-engine plane,
the target envelope is two overlapping
spheres. A shell in the overlap has a
chance of disabling either engine, but
the overlap is where the fuselage is -
a shell there is fatal anyway.
Second: let's consider malfunction. We'll
consider that a linear risk also, and assume
3% risk of engine failure any time during
the mission.
The mission has three phases: approach,
engagement, withdrawal. That is, flight
from base area to the battle area, patrol
and combat in the battle area, and flight back
to base. If a single-engine plane loses
power during any phase, it's lost. A twin-
engine plane is at risk only during engagement.
except in the unlikely event of losing both
engines to breakdown.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Alan Meyer
news:Nu2dnRB4JdjLNHHb...@comcast.com...
> ... and the chances of getting home in a twin-engined aircraft with one engine out are
> 40% ...
Would the Luftwaffe scramble a fighter to go after a
single P-38 returning to England? Would they know
from the ground that it was flying on only one engine?
These aren't rhetorical questions. I don't have any
idea what the answers are. But I think we need to
know the answers to calculate the odds of the returning
P-38 making it home.
Alan
mike
>
> If you want to call that a failing. You could call it a virtue. Simple
> to operate meant that more pilots could reach proficiency more
> quickly.
but having the automatic systems made the pilots workload
easier,not having to do more than the throttle lever, while the
P-38 driver had to adjust the mix on the carbs, while watching
the boost setting as RPMs increased, for both engines to
make sure Manifold Pressure didn't rise too high, a delicate
balancing act, while also paying attention to the radiator
flap position,to make sure overcooling didn't happen.
As I said, automatic controls, while taking out the ability to wring
the
best GPH fuel use while having Military Power on, meant
Kurt,Giles or Yoshio could spend more time on flying and fighting,
not lever jockeying and knob twiddling in combat to keep things in
the best powerband
And a green pilot could do far more damage to his own
engine if not careful, vs the automatic.
**
mike
**
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Second: let's consider malfunction. We'll
> consider that a linear risk also, and assume
> 3% risk of engine failure any time during
> the mission.
> The mission has three phases: approach,
> engagement, withdrawal. That is, flight
> from base area to the battle area, patrol
> and combat in the battle area, and flight back
> to base. If a single-engine plane loses
> power during any phase, it's lost. A twin-
> engine plane is at risk only during engagement.
> except in the unlikely event of losing both
> engines to breakdown.
It's not at all clear that an "engine out" P-38 was "at risk only during
an engagement."
Losing an engine at anytime put the aircraft at risk of loss.
For instance,
"Another problem seldom mentioned was the single generator problem. If a
generator was lost or a low battery the Curtis Electric prop would lose
the Dynamic Brake and go to extreme Low Pitch. This was called a RUN
AWAY. It could happen on Take Off with a low battery. Since you couldn't
feather it set up a lot of drag making it difficult to make it around to
land. The Killer situation was to lose the Generator or lose the engine
with the Generator on it while 2 or 3hrs into Germany. Procedure was to
SET the Props then turn off all electrical power. Then momentarily turn
it back on to reset the props as needed. Being sure everything
electrical was also turned off -- No Radios. The forgotten thing was you
were at altitude and the OAT was -60degrees and the little old battery
was cold soaked. Hence, dead as a dog. Result, with a lot of altitude
you have less than an hour with one or two props in RUNAWAY.
"I have no statistics to back me up on this, but believe, that more
P-38s were lost from this than any other factor including combat. This
simple problem did not receive attention until April, '44."
Comments of Captain Arthur Heiden, P-38 pilot.
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html
From these comments, a RUNAWAY an hour or more from home, whether on
the way out, on the way home, or during "engagement" was going to be
invariably fatal to the aircraft (if not the pilot) - despite the
remaining functioning engine.
P-38s (until the "L" models and a few late production "J"s) had a
generator on only the left engine. A loss of the left engine would
inevitably result in a loss of the generator and the resultant RUNAWAY
condition.
Cheers,
Bill Shatzer
Memory is a funny thing but he clearly was not shot down, even once, by
P-38s with RAF markings.
The RAF never operated any P-38s. They received three Lightning Is for
test purposes which were never used operationally and which, SFAIK,
never left the UK.
He may have been shot down by P-38s but they were not carrying British
markings.
The Free French operated a small number of photo/recon Lightnings (F-4s
and F-5s) with markings similar to the RAF roundels but those were
unarmed photo/recon aircraft and were not capable of shooting anyone down.
Cheers,
David Thornley
Brad Meyer <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:37:46 -0400, mike <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>That was a failing of most US fighters, across the board: had fewer
>>automatic mixture and boost controls than the RAF, Luftwaffe,
>>and even IJN types had.
>
>If you want to call that a failing. You could call it a virtue. Simple
>to operate meant that more pilots could reach proficiency more
>quickly.
>
Simpler controls sometimes mean less simple operation.
>All the countries you mentioned, Britain, Japan, and Germany, selected
>very closely for fighter pilots -- at least pre war and early war. One
>did not have to be a college grad and/or "regular" military (or even
>an officer) to get a cockpit in the US.
Which would imply that it would be well if flying a US aircraft were
simpler than flying somebody else's design. Not if the controls were
simpler.
Same thing applies to the a/c
>they built. While the others will building Jaguars and Porshes and
>RX7's with wings the US was building Plymouths and Fords with wings --
>big heavy sturdy powerful things.
That sounds like the P-47 more than the P-51.
Anyway, if we're going to go with car analogies, what sort of cars
do you want with less picked and selected drivers? Presumably, as
automatic as possible. Switching from cranks to self-starters made
it possible for a lot more people to drive. There are advances
since then, such as automatic choke, automatic transmission, and
anti-lock brakes. These make driving cars easier. These also
make the cars more complex.
So, it would seem that the US aircraft were analogous to cars
with manual chokes and stick shifts, while aircraft of other
countries were analogous to more modern cars. Not an advantage for
the US.
deem...@aol.com
> It's not at all clear that an "engine out" P-38 was "at risk only during
> an engagement."
That's obviously true, but the discussion started as "a one-engined
P-38 was dead meat in combat". Obviously, it was at a severe
disadvantage, but still had a chance to get away. Also, air-to-air
combat is not the only time an engine could be lost.
>
> Losing an engine at anytime put the aircraft at risk of loss.
>
True, even a 4 engined plane could be at risk if it lost an engine.
Still....everything else being equal....would you rather be in a P-38
with one engine out, or a Mustang with one engine out?
Brad Meyer
<term...@utu.fi> wrote:
>Brad Meyer wrote:
>
>> While the others will building Jaguars and Porshes and
>> RX7's with wings the US was building Plymouths and Fords with wings --
>> big heavy sturdy powerful things.
>
>Car analogies as usually bad and in this case as well. The Spitfire and
>Bf 109 certainly were not the equivalent of a Jaguar or a Porsche.
Compared to comparable US a/c, they certainly were, the 109 in
particular. I doubt that either a/c was designed around the engine.
The US, at roughtly the same time, said, "Hey, we got a 2000 hp radial
here. Lets design a fighter around it. In fact, lets let the Navy
design one as well." The only point of departure was the engine. I
doubt you would find two more dissimmilar a/c then the P-47 and the
F4U carrying the same power plant. The American way of design at least
through the 1960's was "bigger, faster -- everything else can be
filled in later". Of course, if you have a great engine in hand, most
problems start looking like horsepower issues.
>Especially the Bf 109 was a relatively small and simple fighter and
>quite well suited for mass production . . .
Not especially simple. That is why there was an ongoing problem with
the leading edge flaps and the "through the hub" cannon.
>The Spitfire
>had its thin wing, but otherwise it was hardly an overly sophisticated
>sports car either.
I said nothing about spphistication. If you think MG is a better cross
then Jaguar I have no objection.
Brad Meyer
>On Sep 16, 2:58 pm, Brad Meyer <bradm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to call that a failing. You could call it a virtue. Simple
>> to operate meant that more pilots could reach proficiency more
>> quickly.
>
>
>but having the automatic systems made the pilots workload
>easier,not having to do more than the throttle lever, while the
>P-38 driver had to adjust the mix on the carbs, while watching
> the boost setting as RPMs increased, for both engines to
>make sure Manifold Pressure didn't rise too high, a delicate
>balancing act, while also paying attention to the radiator
>flap position,to make sure overcooling didn't happen.
And this doesn't even address maneuvers where in he has the throttles
set for two different power levels.
Yau
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>>If you want to call that a failing. You could call it a virtue. Simple
>>to operate meant that more pilots could reach proficiency more
>>quickly.
>>
>Right - which meant that the US designs were at a disadvantage.
>Simpler controls sometimes mean less simple operation.
It also maens you get pilots qualified and flying sooner. That is not
a disadvantage. Rather the opposite. True, a US craft could not be
flown so near its limits as some others, but 90% of 2000 hp is more
then 100% of 1200.
>>All the countries you mentioned, Britain, Japan, and Germany, selected
>>very closely for fighter pilots -- at least pre war and early war. One
>>did not have to be a college grad and/or "regular" military (or even
>>an officer) to get a cockpit in the US.
>
>Which would imply that it would be well if flying a US aircraft were
>simpler than flying somebody else's design.
Which is exactly true.
>Not if the controls were
>simpler.
Two different issues. The first involves how long to get checked out,
the second involves how close to the edge of the envelope one can fly
the a/c.
>That sounds like the P-47 more than the P-51.
P-51 was not an "all US" design. It is also all the USN combat a/c.
For that matter, pretty much anything built around a radial.
>Anyway, if we're going to go with car analogies, what sort of cars
>do you want with less picked and selected drivers?
Duce and a halfs. School buses. An old GM something with a 200 six.
Something essentially bulletproof or as near as possible.
>Presumably, as
>automatic as possible.
Nope. Just the opposite. Manual as possible.
>Switching from cranks to self-starters made
>it possible for a lot more people to drive.
No. It made a lot more people _willing_ to drive. There's a big
difference.
Alan Meyer
news:1189978324.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> .... Having two
> engines was an advantage over those with one.....did it make the P-38
> better? No, but it was something to consider. Kind of like how a P-47
> could take more damage than a P-51....then we'd have to argue which
> was more likely to take damage.
I think this is the real crux of the matter. What planes are most
likely to complete the mission and bring the pilot home alive?
Having a second engine might help with engine reliability but hurt
with respect to maneuverability or acceleration in combat.
I believe that most pilots wanted the best _fighter_ they could
get, i.e., the one most likely to win in combat. German pilots,
for example, were willing to put up with the unsafe, temperamental,
and not yet fully developed Me-262 because its high speed gave
them an edge in combat.
The one pilot I knew who had flown both preferred the P-51 to the
P-38 for that reason.
deem...@aol.com
> I believe that most pilots wanted the best _fighter_ they could
> get, i.e., the one most likely to win in combat. German pilots,
> for example, were willing to put up with the unsafe, temperamental,
> and not yet fully developed Me-262 because its high speed gave
> them an edge in combat.
I totally agree....my original point was that one of the P-38's
advantages was two engines. That didn't make it better than the
others....it just gave it an advantage where engine damage was
concerned...at least a P-38 pilot had a chance to get home if he lost
an engine. We can argue how big of a chance, etc....the fact of the
matter is he had a chance, while single engined fighter pilots didn't.
>
> The one pilot I knew who had flown both preferred the P-51 to the
> P-38 for that reason.
I've talked to two P-38 pilots that preferred it because of its
twin engines. They both flew over the Pacific and both said their
opinion might be different if they flew over Europe. The P-38 was more
than a match for any Japanese fighters and the two engines gave them a
sense of security.....real or imagined? I'm not sure, but they both
gave two engines as the reason they preferred the 38.
One said that many pilots' biggest fear....and I'm assuming his....
was ditching in the middle of the ocean without much hope of rescue.
He said there were a lot of planes that just took off and were never
seen or heard from again.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>I believe that most pilots wanted the best _fighter_ they could
>get, i.e., the one most likely to win in combat.
I think there is at least a tendancy on the part of pilots to want the
best (i.e. highest performance) flying machine rather then the best
(i.e. most likely to win in combat and get home again). Faster,
higher, better turning. From the several WW II fighter pilot memiors I
have read over the years, I think the better the pilot is (i.e. the
more skilled in the air), the more likely he will want performance
rather then more/bigger guns or more pilot protection. He likely
doesn't think he going to take any battle damage and can bring down
any enemy with a vary few rounds. Fighter pilot "attitude".
>German pilots,
>for example, were willing to put up with the unsafe, temperamental,
>and not yet fully developed Me-262 because its high speed gave
>them an edge in combat.
Much the same could be said of the Japanese pilots. The Zero was a
first rate flying machine, capable of some stunning areobatics, but it
was only a so-so fighter. The F4F fought it even, and the F4U and F6F
shredded it.
>The one pilot I knew who had flown both preferred the P-51 to the
>P-38 for that reason.
The P-51 had the better performance envelope. Whether it was a
"better" fighter is a debatable point. Depends on what one means by
"better" in this context.
Alan Meyer
> ... From the several WW II fighter pilot memiors I
> have read over the years, I think the better the pilot is (i.e. the
> more skilled in the air), the more likely he will want performance
> rather then more/bigger guns or more pilot protection. He likely
> doesn't think he going to take any battle damage and can bring down
> any enemy with a vary few rounds. Fighter pilot "attitude".
That's an interesting observation.
The highly skilled pilot is more confident and wants the
edge in combat. He's going to fly aggressively and go
after the enemy. Pilots with less skill and aggressiveness
may find combat bewildering anyway and are interested in
what they perceive as a safe plane.
My own piloting experience is in sailplanes. I'm not a
particularly good pilot and not competent to race sailplanes.
Although I fly an old racing plane (Libelle H-301), I
sometimes long for something simpler, less twitchy, more
stable, and with more low speed control, better vision,
and more emphasis on easy takeoffs and landings.
The racing pilots on the other hand are into pure
performance. One once told me he'd rather fly into the
ground at 80 knots than lose a race. They take chances
that would give me a heart attack and rely on their
superior skill to get them through all difficulties.
Those guys indeed have "attitude".
In a perfect air force, guys like me would be assigned
to fly bombers and guys like the racing pilots would fly
the fighters.
Alan
Bombardier
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
. ?I don't have any
> idea what the answers are. But I think we need to
> know the answers to calculate the odds of the returning
> P-38 making it home.
>
> Alan
I served in the ETO. And we rarely ever saw a P-38. The sky was filled
with Spiits, P-47's, and of couirse p-51's. Most of the P-38's were
moved down to the Med theatre with the Hurricanes..
Art Kramer
344thBG 494th BS
England France Belgium Italy Holland Germany
www.coastcomp.com.artkramer
Branek
"Bombardier" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190393230....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
frédéric haessig
fcls5o$i6l$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
Why are you discounting the Me110 and 210?
They were not really sucessfull, but they were definitely operational
Bombardier
> Wow, a WW2 vet.! Thanks for your efforts in WW2.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. I was 19 years old and had nuthin better
to do at the time so I thought I'd volunteer for the Army Air Corps.
Me and 11 million other guys.:->
Art
www,coastcomp.com/artkramer
John Waters
British, in May 1940. The French ordered * 417 322-F, while the
British ordered * 250 322-B. Both orders were placed well before the
YP ever flew.
Due the the French capulation the 322-F order was picked up by the
British. The first RAF Lightning (Mk 1) did not fly until August 1941.
The tests with the Lightning
Mk 1 which were flown in the states at Burbank Ca, by British test
pilots, revealed that altitude performance above 12,000ft was severely
lacking, and not up to British standards, due to the lack of
turbosuperchargers etc, and the order was promptly canceled. (and was
immidiately picked up by the USAAC).
Only one Mk 1* was ever shipped to England (RAF serial AF106), where
it was tested again with the same results. Their were plans for an
Lightning Mk II, order which would have had more powerful powerplants
and turbosuperchargers, but only one example was completed, before the
order was also canceled.
The USAAC picked up the entire Mk I, Mk II, British order and
redesignated the the aircraft as follows *:
P-322 - 140 Mk I
P-38F - 150 Mk II
P-38G - 374 Mk II
The 140 P-322's were refurbished with Allision F series powerplants,
before being sent off to be used as trainers and Lockheed test AC.
*See: O'leary Michael, "Lockheed P-38 Lightning". pp. 34, 38, 137.
Regards, John Waters
Brad Meyer
<fhae...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Tero P. Mustalahti" <term...@utu.fi> a écrit dans le message de news:
>fcls5o$i6l$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
>> David Thornley wrote:
>>
>>> I would say that it was the best twin-engined day fighter of the war.
>>
>> It was also the only operational* twin piston-engined day fighter, which
>> did not have major problems against single engined fighters in combat.
>> Thus it was also the best...
>>
>> * The Do 335 was not really operational.
>>
>
>
>Why are you discounting the Me110 and 210?
No. They fall under the "did not have major problems against single
engined fighters in combat" side of the equation.
Louis C
>
> It was also the only operational* twin piston-engined day fighter, which
> did not have major problems against single engined fighters in combat.
The P-38 did generally have problems against good single-engined
fighters, though it could handle the second-best ones with little
problem.
However, I'm not sure that puts it in a category of its own, e.g. the
Bf.110 got a bad rep due to its performance in the Battle of Britain
but it was still fairly successful, including against single-engined
fighters, in the early war. With the proper tactics, it was considered
bad news for all the French fighters except the Dewoitine 520 (and
before arguing "but they're only French fighters", remember that most
of the P-38 successes were achieved against "but they're only
Japanese" opponents!), not to mention of course the fighters from
second-rate air forces like Poland, Greece, or the FAA.
LC
Yau
P-38 - but the production board didn't want to waste production time on the
effort.
But did the British retrofit a Lightning with Merlin engines for phone recce
work etc..?
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> But did the British retrofit a Lightning with Merlin engines for phone recce
> work etc..?
I'm unaware of any such British project.
It seems utterly superfluous to RAF needs as they already possessed fine
photo-recon aircraft in the form of the various Spitfire and Mosquito
P.R. marks.
Cheers,
jitte...@hotmail.com
> It seems to me the P-38 dominated the Pacific theater -- the two ace of aces
> in
> WW2 both flew P-38's (Bong and McGuire) and according to wikipedia:
> The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other
> USAAF fighter.
> , but how did it do in the European theatre?
Poorly, at least in the high altitude escort misson. Looking at the
kill to loss rate of the P-38 groups, they weren't better than 2 to
1.
Most of the problems came from the engines and how they responded to
the cold at 20,000+ feet. The engines didn't run hot enough, so they
didn't stay properly lubricated. This lead to engines swallowing
intake and exhaust valves, and breaking connecting rods. Since the
engine wasn't running hot enough, the pilot wasn't being kept warm
enough, and his combat effectiveness dropped signifigantly. Air and
fuel did not mix properly due to the cold, so some cylinders in the
engine ran rich, and some ran lean. This leads to poor engine
performance and fouled plugs. And lastly, I believe since the turbos
were placed on top of the booms, engine exhaust would condense, and
then freeze in the turbos.
IMO, the P-38s nose guns made it one of the best armed fighters of the
war. Max level speed, climb, turn, roll, acceleration were all good.
Below 25,000 it did just about everything better than the Bf-109 and
Fw-190, except dive. Compressability was a problem with the J models,
the most commonly used P-38 type in the 8th AF, and P-38s had to
spiral down after a diving enemy. I'm not sure what the specifc
problems with the P-38 were over 25,000, but at that altitude, the
Bf-109 was a hand full for it to deal with.
Michael
Walt
was the first "energy fighter, a WWII F-16. If one really knew how to
fly it, it was very deadly.
The real shame of the P-38 in Europe is the blind faith of Eaker at
8th BC that the B-17 could be the "self-defending bomber." If the
engine reliability problems had been given highest priorities and a
Merlin engine version taken in hand from mid 1942, the very heavy
bomber losses that were suffered from June-October 1943 could almost
certainly been lessened. Eaker didn't even care about the P-51Bs,
when they became available late in 1943.
When one considers that two P-38 groups were in England in the Summer
of 1942, it is just such a shame more was not done on developing the
P-38 for the escort role. Instead, those groups went to North Africa
and the P-38's in England were just an afterthought by Eaker and
Hunter, the CG of 8th FC.
Walt
Branek
>
> Aw shucks. Tweren't nuthin'. I was 19 years old and had nuthin better
> to do at the time so I thought I'd volunteer for the Army Air Corps.
> Me and 11 million other guys.:->
>
> Art
> www,coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
A well worth visiting website too Art. Who says you can't teach an old
dog new tricks? So you were a Marauder bombardier? Were you
expected to fire the forward 50 cal as well? Did you ever get any
air-to-air kills?
I'll have a bunch of questions for you once I've looked over your
website.
John Waters
>
> But did the British retrofit a Lightning with Merlin engines for phone recce
> work etc..?
I do not believe so. The British only recieved an single Mk 1
Lightning (RAF serial AF106), and I have found no data on any
modifications done after AF106 was tested in England and rejected.
Their was 1, Mk II Lightning completed for the RAF* serial AF221 (c/n
3244) but the order was canceled before it could be delivered to the
RAF. AF221 was taken by the USAAF & redesignated P38F-13-LO ( s/n
43-2035) and used by Lockheed for testing etc.
As someone else stated the RAF already had fine PR aircraft of their
own. The only other Nations to use PR Lightnings were the **RAAF who
only used them for a short period in the PTO, and the FFA who operated
F-5's in the ETO along side the 12th AF's 3rd PRG.
*See: O'leary Michael, "Lockheed P-38 Lightning". p.37
**ibid p.105
Regards, John Waters
Michael Emrys
deem...@aol.com at deem...@aol.com wrote on 9/19/07 3:04 PM:
> ....my original point was that one of the P-38's advantages was two engines.
> That didn't make it better than the others....it just gave it an advantage
> where engine damage was concerned...at least a P-38 pilot had a chance to get
> home if he lost an engine. We can argue how big of a chance, etc....the fact
> of the matter is he had a chance, while single engined fighter pilots didn't.
While I personally am a fan of the P-38, that statement above might be
disputed. If we are limiting the discussion to only fighters with liquid
cooled engines, I'd have to agree with you. But if we open it up to air
cooled radials, we start to get a different picture.
I don't know what comprehensive and accurate statistics would look like, but
I have heard stories about the P&W R-2800, for instance, that give me pause.
There are stories of fighters even having entire cylinders shot away but
lasting long enough to bring their pilots home. It was a rugged beast.
Michael
Brad Meyer
wrote:
i have seen pictures of both Hellcat's and T-bolts with cylanders shot
away that came back home. Also, one is never going to tweak (bend) the
crankshaft of a rotary while this was not uncommon with a heavy handed
pilot and an inline.
deem...@aol.com
> While I personally am a fan of the P-38, that statement above might be
> disputed. If we are limiting the discussion to only fighters with liquid
> cooled engines, I'd have to agree with you. But if we open it up to air
> cooled radials, we start to get a different picture.
P-38 with one damaged engine probably would have a better chance
than a T-bolt, etc with one damaged engine. I'm not saying the radials
weren't more damage resistant, it's just a matter of numbers. 2>1.
Since I've been talking about losing one engine, even that argument
doesn't really matter. The chances in a P-38 with one engine out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the chances in a single engined plane
with one engine out.
>
deem...@aol.com
> i have seen pictures of both Hellcat's and T-bolts with cylanders shot
> away that came back home. Also, one is never going to tweak (bend) the
> crankshaft of a rotary while this was not uncommon with a heavy handed
> pilot and an inline.
And I'd be willing to bet that a P-38 with one engine out was in
better shape than either of those with cylinders shot away. Everyone
seems to be making this way too complicated. One good engine is better
than no good engines.
Louis C
> The chances in a P-38 with one engine out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
> chances in a single engined plane with one engine out.
2 engines also means twice the chances of getting an engine hit.
LC
deem...@aol.com
> > The chances in a P-38 with one engine out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > chances in a single engined plane with one engine out.
>
> 2 engines also means twice the chances of getting an engine hit.
>
> LC
Which is a whole different argument. (Not that there's anything
wrong with that)
Brad Meyer
>>
>> i have seen pictures of both Hellcat's and T-bolts with cylanders shot
>> away that came back home. Also, one is never going to tweak (bend) the
>> crankshaft of a rotary while this was not uncommon with a heavy handed
>> pilot and an inline.
>
> And I'd be willing to bet that a P-38 with one engine out was in
>better shape than either of those with cylinders shot away.
Depends on which engine. If it isn't the one with the generator the
a/c is a rock anyway.
>Everyone
>seems to be making this way too complicated. One good engine is better
>than no good engines.
Only if the one good engine can make the electricity to run the
electrical systems. Otherwise it is of no more use then a clean
windscreen.
deem...@aol.com
>
> Depends on which engine. If it isn't the one with the generator the
> a/c is a rock anyway.
Only if it's an early P-38.....that problem was fixed in the later
ones.
>
>
>
> Only if the one good engine can make the electricity to run the
> electrical systems. Otherwise it is of no more use then a clean
> windscreen.
I'd bet it's better to have whatever bit of lift that one engine
can give, than not.
Bill Shatzer
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:48:46 -0500, "deem...@aol.com"
> <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>i have seen pictures of both Hellcat's and T-bolts with cylanders shot
>>>away that came back home. Also, one is never going to tweak (bend) the
>>>crankshaft of a rotary while this was not uncommon with a heavy handed
>>>pilot and an inline.
>> And I'd be willing to bet that a P-38 with one engine out was in
>>better shape than either of those with cylinders shot away.
> Depends on which engine. If it isn't the one with the generator the
> a/c is a rock anyway.
Didn't they fix that problem sometime during the P-38J production run
and the late Js and all L Lightnings have two generators - one on each
engine?
Cheers,
Brad Meyer
I'd bet its better not to have to fight the asymetrical thrust of a
single engine not on the center line.
Brad Meyer
I have seen that stated but don't know. By the time the "J's" rolled
out, though, the P-38's were pretty much gone from the ETO, were they
not?
ThePro
>
> 2 engines also means twice the chances of getting an engine hit.
>
> LC
If I can use a computer analogy, it is like saying that hard drive
mirroring does not make sense because it doubles your chances of
loosing one disk.
Yes, but if you loose one disk in a mirrored array you do not loose
your data.
So I'd willingly double my chances of loosing an engine to have to
possibility to go back home with the other one. To have 2 engines
twices your chances to loose 1 of them, but it halves your chances of
loosing *ALL* of them.
Pierrot Robert
Chicoutimi, Canada
Bill Shatzer
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:37:22 -0500, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>Brad Meyer wrote:
-snip-
>>>Depends on which engine. If it isn't the one with the generator the
>>>a/c is a rock anyway.
>>Didn't they fix that problem sometime during the P-38J production run
>>and the late Js and all L Lightnings have two generators - one on each
>>engine?
> I have seen that stated but don't know. By the time the "J's" rolled
> out, though, the P-38's were pretty much gone from the ETO, were they
> not?
The P-38J models were introduced into service in August, 1943. My
references show that as of D-Day in 1944, there were 4 fighter groups in
the 8th AF and 3 fighter groups in the 9th AF equipped with P-38s - in
addition to some F-5s in the recon units.
Total fighter strength of the 8th and 9th AF on June 6, 1944, totalled
34 fighter groups so the 7 P-38 groups represented about 20% of the
total fighter strength on that date - a not inconsequential fraction.
Obviously, there were other P-38 units operating in Italy and the Med
but I don't have unit listings for those handy.
So no, the P-38s weren't "pretty much gone" by the time the J models
rolled out - although I'm not exactly sure when in the J production run
the twin generator modification occurred. The L models didn't enter
service until June of 1944 but it seems that at least some Ls were used
during the Normandy invasion if not on D-Day itself.
Cheers,
Robert Sveinson
news:v67gl393p78ggasi3...@4ax.com...
If the concern is about returning to base
without any generator or battery electricity
not to worry. The engine ignition system is
dual magneto powered, and the basic flight
instruments do not depend on electrical power.
Happy landings.
Robert
>
Bill Shatzer
> On Dec 6, 3:52 am, Louis C <louis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>2 engines also means twice the chances of getting an engine hit.
> If I can use a computer analogy, it is like saying that hard drive
> mirroring does not make sense because it doubles your chances of
> loosing one disk.
> Yes, but if you loose one disk in a mirrored array you do not loose
> your data.
> So I'd willingly double my chances of loosing an engine to have to
> possibility to go back home with the other one. To have 2 engines
> twices your chances to loose 1 of them, but it halves your chances of
> loosing *ALL* of them.
Well, it all depends on the probability of getting home on one engine.
If your chances of losing an engine are doubled with a twin engined
aircraft and your chances of limping home on one engine are less than
50%, you're better off with only one engine.
I'd suppose your chances of making base on one engine are fairly
reasonable if the engine goes out because of mechanical failure on a
test hop over the British Midlands - though with a single engine
aircraft in that situation, you could always bail out and your chances
of getting home would be about the same - albeit without your aircraft.
You would have considerably poorer odds of getting home if you lost an
engine - for whatever reason - while on an escort mission over northern
Germany.
Cheers,
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> If the concern is about returning to base
> without any generator or battery electricity
> not to worry. The engine ignition system is
> dual magneto powered, and the basic flight
> instruments do not depend on electrical power.
> Happy landings.
But feathering the Curtiss Electric props required electrical power.
And at high altitudes, the battery was often "cold-soaked" and couldn't
provide sufficient electrical power to feather the props.
With one engine out and an unfeathered prop on the bad engine, it is
time to begin to worry.
Cheers,
Robert Sveinson
news:RPudneuN0Mtgocfa...@comcast.com...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
> -snip-
> But feathering the Curtiss Electric props required electrical power.
> And at high altitudes, the battery was often "cold-soaked" and couldn't
> provide sufficient electrical power to feather the props.
>
> With one engine out and an unfeathered prop on the bad engine, it is time
> to begin to worry.
>
> Cheers,
Oops. That fact didn't even twig in my short or long term memory.
Thanks for that.
Robert
>
Brad Meyer
<bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The P-38J models were introduced into service in August, 1943. My
>references show that as of D-Day in 1944, there were 4 fighter groups in
>the 8th AF and 3 fighter groups in the 9th AF equipped with P-38s - in
>addition to some F-5s in the recon units.
>
>Total fighter strength of the 8th and 9th AF on June 6, 1944, totalled
>34 fighter groups so the 7 P-38 groups represented about 20% of the
>total fighter strength on that date - a not inconsequential fraction.
I would call it that. Especially in that at least one of the groups
ws secheduled to transition to P-51's. IOW four groups were expected
to fly primarily air to air missions.
>Obviously, there were other P-38 units operating in Italy and the Med
>but I don't have unit listings for those handy.
Not ETO anyway.
>So no, the P-38s weren't "pretty much gone" by the time the J models
>rolled out - - -
Doesn't look that way to me.