worr posted 12-02-98 10:37 AM ET (US)        

This is from rec.aviaition.miliatry board from a 38/51 pilot in the ETO. Smut found it and shared it with the Pigs...thought I'd pass it on:

(Yes, its legit)

Worr

>From: Ceullers51

>Subject: Re: P38 vs P-51 vs 109 vs 190 (was Re: Lindbergh in a Mustang Over

>Tokyo)

>Date: 1 Dec 1998 19:06:39 GMT

Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.

Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery. The 38 seemed to have plenty of power for a prop job and certainly below 15,000 ft. no German fighter could get away from it.

That may sound pretty low, but if you initiated an engagement at 27,000 ft. going into a shallow dive and making a few parring turns, you could easily lose 10,000 ft. Certainly in a 38 without dive flaps you would not want to drop the nose too sharply above 20,000 ft. As krauts got to know the 38 they would tend to dive sharply away from it, convinced it would not follow. But that was just fine, because the 38's job was to protect the bombers. If a gaggle of 109s approached the bombers, escorting P-38s turned to engage them and the 109s bugged out for the deck, the 38's job was done. Those 109s wouldn't have enough gas to climb back up to altitude, chase the bombers and position for an attack. And if they did, the 38s would turn in to them and the process would repeat.

The krauts figured this out pretty soon and knew they had to hit the 38s. They would climb very high (109s, the 190s weren't seen at very high altitudes)and bounce the 38s, who would be cruising at around 220 or so if they hadn't spotted the krauts. Most losses were the result of surprise bounces, the krauts keeping on moving so there was no chance for retaliation. The 38 formation would be broken up, with guys turning looking for the enemy, leaving a way open for other German fighters to hit the bombers.

The only solution to the surprise bounce was to open up the escort fighter formation, have high cover several thousand feet above the bombers and close escort, and keep your head on a swivel. Of course, simply having MORE escorts also helped. (I would wager that was a big problem for the two early 38 groups. They just didn't have enough people to play both the infield and the outfield.) The trick was to spot the Germans as they maneuvered into position for a bounce. That's where having outstanding eyesight mattered, mattered a LOT more than dive flaps or a few more horsepower. One man in a squadron with exceptional eyesight was a real lifesaver. If a high group of krauts was spotted, some of the escort would be tapped to go after them. They didn't have to shoot them down to succeed. All they needed to do was break up their party and force them to dive away.

The 51 could operate at altitudes higher than we usually encountered krauts so had less trouble with being bounced, although, of course, you had to fly at the altitude dictated by the bombers. It had a trickier stall than the 38 so that it was not at all unusual to snap out a tight turn curving in after a kraut.

The first time I lost a 51 in a high speed stall I lost 13,000 ft. before I was able to recover and thought I was going to have to bail out. Man, at that point I HATED that airplane. But by about the third or fourth time that happened, I could recover losing less than 500 ft. and wasn't afraid to push

the plane till it snapped. I'd just get it right back under control and keep going. I got so I could catch it just as it departed and it would only wiggle a bit before getting back down to business. I knew what the airplane was going to do before the airplane did and was ready for it. I didn't even have to consciously think about it. What I had thought was a very big deal was, after a while, no problem at all. The airplane was OK. The pilot just had to learn how to handle it. Stick time does make a difference. To those who have said the 38 was a more complicated airplane than the 51 and so pilots needed more time to master it, I would answer that the 51 could be a contrary beast and a pilot needed time to learn to master IT.

If I was to differentiate between the 38 and the 51, I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height. The 51's qualities shone best when it was high and fast. In the upper air at well over 300 per, the German fighters were sitting ducks for a 51. They couldn't outmaneuver it and they couldn't out run it and they couldn't out dive it. That's why you hear these stories about a German pilot simply bailing out as soon as a 51 locked on to him. He knew he had no chance so why hang around for the bullets to hit.

Once the 51 was available in numbers it made sense to shift the 38s to the 9th air force and ground attack. It could easily outfight any Luftwaffe opposition at mid and low altitudes, could carry plenty of bombs and survive ground fire that would have killed the 51 very quickly. The only time I wished I was in a 38 when flying the 51 was attacking ground targets. It wouldn't take much to bring a 51 down, and unlike in an air to air encounter, whether you went down or got home was just a matter of your luck that day. Pilot skill was largely irrelevent, as long as you were good enough to keep the airplane at grass cutting height and didn't fly it into the ground because your reactions were too slow. A 38 on the deck was very stable at speed, and hard to bring down by triple A.

My personal situation was such that I had to lean forward slightly to reach all the controls on the 38 and get a good grip on the control wheel. Because of my body's position, I would tend toward gray out and tunnel vision fairly quicky in hard turns. With the 51, I was able to reach all the controls and have a good grip on the stick while leaning back slightly, so gray out and tunnel vision didn't hit me as quickly. That was one big reason I preferred the 51. Other reasons were that I preferred the high sky for my war, and if I had wanted to follow the 38 thru its war career (assuming I had a choice in the matter) I would have had to have spent it in the 9th shooting up airfields.

No thank you.

George

Stiglr posted 12-02-98 11:53 AM ET (US)            

Wow. Great stuff. After this weekend, this excerpt really hit home:

"In the upper air at well over 300 per, the German fighters were sitting ducks for a 51. They couldn't outmaneuver it and they couldn't out run it and they couldn't out dive it. That's why you hear these stories about a German pilot simply bailing out as soon as a 51 locked on to him. He knew he had no chance so why hang around for the bullets to hit?"

I remember tangling with -51s in the Italy HA numerous times and getting nailed, and after one such engagement, was climbing out with -hotar and --ik-- and we were having a discussion on how to deal with the -51. We were frustrated, and had that same, "Can't out turn it; can't dive away from it; can't outrun it" discussion. "Rolling scissors" was about the only thing we could think of when you met a 'Stang high and he had energy.

This is what I LOVE about WB; how the richness of the sim allows you to have "real" discussions about your experiences that jibe with real anecdotes and history!

SnakeEyes posted 12-02-98 11:55 AM ET (US)            

Interesting post...

I wonder if he was flying the 51B. Even in our imperfect little WB environment, I've noticed that the B can be a truculent little plane when it comes to slicing in on a bandit... turn just a *bit* too much and it's very prone to "snapping out" exactly as George mentioned.

In fact, if he was 9th AF (and it sounds like he was), he may well have flown the B substantially more than the D (as I believe the 9th AF had their Bs much longer than the 8th AF did).

o-o-o-

"SnakeEyes"

XO Fourth Fighter Group

worr posted 12-02-98 12:00 PM ET (US)            

Here is some more:

Worr, out

Here are the official victory records and aircraft types flown of the USAAF FGs in WW2 (plus two so-so units important in the 38 discussion)--

1fg 440 P-38

4fg 550 P-47 P-51

8fg 453 P-39, P-40 P-38

14fg 426 P-38

20fg 211 P-38 P-51

23fg 467 P-40 P-51

35fg 387 P-400 P-39 P-38 P-47 P-51

49fg 664 P-40 P-38 P-47

52fg 425 Spitfire P-51

55fg 303 P-38 P-51

56fg 664 P-47

78fg 326 P-47 P-51

82fg 553 P-38

325 540 P-40 P-47 P-51

347fg 315 P-39 P-38

348fg 349 P-47 P-51

352fg 504 P-47 P-51

353fg 328 P-47 P-51

354fg 637 P-47 P-51

355fg 339 P-47 P-51

357fg 595 P-51

475fg 552 P-38

Of the groups with more than 400 kills that flew only one type of aircraft thruout their wartime tour, one flew the P-47, one the P-51 and four the P-38.

Three of the P-38 groups were in the MTO and one the Pacific. Of the groups scoring more than 500 kills while flying only one type of aircraft, one flew the P-47, one the P-51 and two the P-38. One of the P-38 groups served in the MTO.

13 P-38 groups were deployed in the combined MTO/ETO theaters. 34 P-47 groups served in the same theaters. 24 P-51 groups did so. (Note that most groups, as can be seen from the list above, did not keep one fighter type for the entire war.) That the aircraft type with the fewest deployed fg has the highest number of fg in the top ranks in air to air killsis worth noting and doesn't seem to indicate the 38 lacked the ability to rough up the enemy.

Some comments--

While the ETO fighter jocks got permission to abandon close escort and do free ranging escort from late winter 44, the MTO jocks never got such permission and so during the entire war flew only close escort, meaning they gave up the key advantages of speed and altitude to their foes--yet with that handicap still performed outstandingly well in air to air.

I threw in the 20 and 55 fg figures because these were the two original ETO 38 groups that seem to be the source of origin of the P-38's poor reputation in the ETO. But even with the swtich from teh 38, their record for the war is not outstanding. It was very good, but not top rank.

Compare their records with that of, for example, the 325, which served in the MTO. It scored 135 kills with the P-40, 153 with the P-47 and 288 with the P-51, pushing it right to the top ranks of fg. No 325 vet I've ever run into has badmouthed any of the aircraft they flew, including the P-40, which must have had been outclassed. A poor workman blames his tools. The reasons they generally cite for the greater number of kills with the P-51 is that it gave them the range to go where the action was.

It could be asked why it was that the P-38 groups did so much better than the P-47 and P-51 groups in the MTO. Why didn't the P-47, for example, shine in the MTO the way it did in the ETO? A P-47 group topped all the fg in kills and was based in the ETO, yet no P-47 group did all that well in the MTO--or the PTO for that matter. Can we conclude from this that the P-47 met easier opposition in the ETO than in the MTO or PTO? Or would it be wiser to conclude that that fg was a crackerjack unit, with outstanding leadership, and mission profiles that offered it plenty of opportunities to score.

A key point about all the high scoring fg--they were at the time and place where the action was. And they were skilled enough, led well enough and had mission assignments appropriate enough to allow them to shine.

What's interesting to me is that the US had so many capable fighter types to choose from. Based on its record, the P-38 delivered the goods.

George

worr posted 12-02-98 12:05 PM ET (US)            

OK...some more 38 vs 51 comparisons.

Worr

The P-38 cockpit was plenty roomy. In fact it was a long reach to get hold of the control wheel. No problem wearing a warm flying jacket. Besides with the sun shining through that plexiglas canopy it got quite toasty warm for the upper body. It was the lower extremeties that got cold. Solution was fairly simple--silk liner socks, two pairs of wool socks and an outer pair of cotton socks. The cotton seemed to suck moisture away from the feet. Then stick your tootsies in boots two sizes too big so you'd have plenty of room to wiggle the toes. You'd still be cold but you could handle it. If you were flying under a high overcast, it could get quite cold. The worst problem with being cold is that it made you want to pee and doing that was not easy.

The contrary of a warm, cozy cockpit on a long, frankly for the most part boring, mission is the tendency to doze off. Which is better, fighting to keep your eyes open or wiggling around in your seat and stomping your feet trying to keep warm? Six of one...

You wanted to have an empty bladder and an empty colon before a long mission. Eat light at dinner. Skip breakfast, maybe a few cautious sips of coffee. Get awful dehydrated, and suddenly very hungry about two-thirds along on the return trip. Bring something to nibble on.

Somebody mentioned the FW 190 being able to outdive the 38 by 60 mph and be five miles ahead very quickly. It would depend on the aggressiveness of the 38 pilot and how desirous the 190 jockey was to get away. In the days when the 38 was introduced into the long range escort role in the ETO, whenever a 38 pilot was likely to encounter a German he was among a lonely few Yanks and a LONG way from home. Plus he had orders to stick close to the bombers. Plus the Germans he was likely to encounter were still pretty sharp then. Would YOU have gone balls to the wall chasing some guy to hell and gone who absolutely positively has friends of his lurking around that you haven't spotted?

By the time of the 51's heyday (and a fine little airplane it was), there was a lot more of the guys in white hats around, fewer of the guys in black hats and they were beginning to lose their edge. Was the 38 worse than the 51? No. Just different. Did more pilots have better luck in the ETO with the 51 than the 38? Seems so. Why? Tactics was one reason. Freed from the bomber formations to chase the wiley kraut back to his lair, corner him and finish him off, they were able to rack up more kills.

Another reason was the K14 gunsight. You could make kills using that sight in situations where without it firing your guns would be a waste of ammunition.

I grant you that a lot of people preferred the 51 to the 38. The 51 was a wonderful airplane, so it is easy to understand why. But then, believe it or not, there were some people who preferred the P-40 to the 51. I've talked with people who served in the 325 who were heartbroken to trade their Peter 4-0s for Jugs. And there were some who got postively sick on their first mission in the 51 after trading their 47s for them. The spamcan seemed so insubstantial after the Jug. Then there were those who had motored along in whatever they had been flying, doing OK until one day they got to plant their feet on the rudder pedals of a Mustang and suddenly they realized that THIS was what they were born for. This was their airplane, and they really went to town with it.

Maybe that was the way it was for Bong with the 38 or Johnson with the 47. Some things are beyond facts and figures.

George

fltp posted 12-02-98 12:13 PM ET (US)            

Snake-n-bake wrote:

"I wonder if he was flying the 51B. Even in our imperfect little WB environment, I've noticed that the B can be a truculent little plane when it comes to slicing in on a bandit... turn just a *bit* too much and it's very prone to "snapping out" exactly as George mentioned."

"In fact, if he was 9th AF (and it sounds like he was), he may well have flown the B substantially more than the D (as I believe the 9th AF had their Bs much longer than the 8th AF did)."

I think this guy is actually George Cuellers or Cueleers (Have seen it spelled both ways). If it's him, he was in the 364th FG, 383 FS, 8th AF with 10.5 kills. His plane was "Constance", I think. The 364th had P-38J's (I think) and then P-51's. They transitioned to P-51's in late July of 44. From what I've gathered, they had a few P-51C's during the transition period, but only a few mostly for familiarization. The vast majority of their work was done in P-51D's.

Why do I care? My grandfather was in the 364th FG, 384th FS until the very beginning of the Pony show. I've been trying to contact this guy for a few days now to see if it's him, and if he ever met my grandfather (I never got to. ). Unfortunatly, that address does not accept e-mail. Bummer.

Web-birds does have some photos and history of the 364th up. It's worth checking out.

Flip-Top

hoki posted 12-02-98 12:50 PM ET (US)            

"I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height."

Hmmmm, I wonder what Thomas McGuire would say about that comment. (I know it was bad, but I couldn't resist)

On another note I would be interested in which he thought was the most manueverable. I have talked to 3 real life 51 pilots who flew in the ETO and swear that the 51 easily outmanuevered the 38 (and yes "outturned" also), two of them at last year's con. Anecdotal information is very interesting, although it can be prejudicial at times (meaning performance of plane vs. plane, not a jab on the man who wrote this).

-hoki-

cmos posted 12-02-98 12:53 PM ET (US)            

Great Stuff.

The first time I lost a 51 in a high speed stall I lost 13,000 ft. before I was a....

Sounds like we have some VERY well modeled planes in Warbirds today. I have had these exact things happen to me in the 51 and the 38.

cmos

worr posted 12-02-98 01:45 PM ET (US)            

Here are two more...one on buffs and their importance, the other on FW domination by the 38L

Worr, out

From: Ceullers51

Subject: Re: P38 vs P-51 vs 109 vs 190 (was Re: Lindbergh in a Mustang Over Tokyo)

Date: 2 Dec 1998 02:42:59 GMT

Art Krammer commented--

>

>We still don't get no respect. (grin)

(smut's note: the above is from a former bomber crewman)

Yes, you do. The only reason the fighters were there was to ensure the bombers were able to do their job. The whole air war effort was aimed at getting bombardiers over the target so they could plant pretty HE flowers in the kraut's garden. Everybody else was second or third fiddle to the guy with the bomb on his silver wings. Nine out of ten times a figher jock would fly a mission during which nothing at all happened. But everytime a bomber flew a mission, it struck a blow against the enemy and shortened the war.

George

------

Post 2:

From: Ceullers51

Subject: Re: P38 vs P-51 vs 109 vs 190 (was Re: Lindbergh in a Mustang Over Tokyo)

Date: 2 Dec 1998 02:35:55 GMT

V. Lenoch asked about whether I would keep the 51 at WEP or vary the throttle setting.

I would keep it at WEP, above 65 inches and 3000 rpm except when going into a dive at high altitude. I wanted speed more than anything, and that was what the 51 was best at. I could maneuver at 400 plus and the krauts couldn't.

If they wanted a piece of me they would have to play by my rules and if they played by my rules, I would win. When I became squadron CO that's what I drilled into my boys. Speed, speed, speed. Don't pussyfoot with them.

Make them sweat at 400. Then push them to 500. Let them know you are the better pilot in the better plane. Then kill them.

Maury Markowitz asked which direction the stall break was. To the right. About the 38 and the 190, the 38 could handle the 190 at any altitude. All the 190 had going for it was a great split-S. But that was an escape maneuver. If the kraut wants to run away, let him. The early J could not do a good split-S. About all it could manage was a jenny immelman. But the models with dive flaps and aileron boost could follow a 190 through a split-S, surprising the bejesus out of Herr Uberman.

George