P-38 Lightning Mach Limits and Other Issues
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2021
- The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was a formidable fighter, but as with most aircraft that pioneer new technology, it had its share of problems.
Some of these problems were overcome, some just couldn't be. Even so, it was a highly effective plane in demand in every theater of conflict during WW2.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com 
Авто/Мото
Doolittle said "It is the sweetest plane he ever flew". On June 6th 1944 he was flying one over Normandy. No other testimony is needed.
"Greetings, this is Greg"
- most authoritative introduction on the internet
The biggest advantage of the P-38 to pilots in the Pacific theater: two engines. Must have been very much appreciated when flying long missions over vast areas of water and jungle.
I reckon turbosupercharger boost was helpful flying in tropical hot air of low density.
I'm not well-versed in the details of the system used by the various p-38s, but it was typical for allied fighters to have plenty of mechanical boost for low-altitude operations with the turbo providing extended high-altitude operation in low density air where the extra power in thinner air gave fairly draggy airframes enhanced speed and efficiency. I believe the p-38 designers started with the long booms to allow their structural and aerodynamic groups a head start, knowing there would be plenty of room to accommodate the mechanical bits which were still in development. Some other early fighters were forever limited by airframes which were too compact to allow for these systems. The p-47 was one of the other benefactors of this allowance for lots of extra plumbing. The p-38 must have seemed like a Cadillac of the air in tropical high-altitude long range operations.@@tonyz7216
Not to mention it had more area of horizontal flight surface making it capable of gliding or staying airborne even after sustaining heavy damage. There's been documented incidents where P38 pilots were able to land in planes nearly cut in half, like missing half of its tail and most of one wing.
If you're the pilot, I'm sure having a 2x cost plane with 2x engines gives you assurance over the Pacific. But having half the planes in the air might cost more lives in the overall scheme of things.
That said, the P-38 was the best we had in the critical early phase of the war.
If you are down to a choice between quantity and quality, then quantity often is better, depending on the sacrifices made. Once allied pilots understood the weaknesses of the zero (and Japanese tactics) the high rate of attrition outweighed the lower cost and higher production rates for Japan. You can often replenish planes, but skilled and experienced pilots may take years to replace.@@GeorgeOu
I was carried by a P-38 from Saipan to Tinian in 1945. The plane was so fast we flew into yesterday.
Hi 20. Doesn't flying into yesterday make the aircraft slow? But I understand that always flying into tomorrow especially fast either. It's a very nice aircraft either way.
@@roderickcampbell2105
Not in this case. The plane wasn't slow, I can tell you that.
@@20alphabet Hi 20. Oh, I knew that! Good stuff. I hope you were the best for it. Regards.
?
SR-71 crews experienced some type of similar phenomenon when flying from the base in England that they operated out of back to the States, I remember reading where one of the pilots said that they landed 7 minutes earlier than when they took off because they were flying faster than the Earth rotates, he also said that during one particularly long mission he observed something like 3 sunrises and sunsets during that one mission alone.
I dedicate this comment to The Algorithm. May He promote Greg's channel. 🙏
Carl, I have it on good authority the "he" is actually a "She"!
those danged algorithymns
no matter how you spell it it feels like a dance step
@@moss8448 Al-Gore-Rhythms
Amen Carl.
Let us all, denizens of Google as we are, pray to its benevolent wisdom; and that it should promote Greg's videos to more and more like minded aviation history nuts, such as ourselves.
The P-38 Lightning is by far, my favorite war-plane of all time. Even with all its flaws, and the price. I think this is a beautiful piece of workmanship. Thank you for posting this video series. I have greatly enjoyed it.
I couldn't agree more.
What did the P 38 do?
It was a major part of the cactus air force (Guadalcanal).
Kept Morroco out of the war as well as Spain.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre and other interceptions of Luftwaffe Transports (North Africa 42-43).
Cleared the Mediterranean out of Bf 109 G's and Fw 190's (helped along with the P 40's)
Shot down Yamamoto.
Provided adequate bomber bomber escort in 43-44.
And was the mount of Richard Bong Americas highest scoring Ace.
The Plane Served Very Well.
The sight of her alone scared the hell out of our enemies.
Don't forget that it was also one of the major "Photo Joe" planes in the Pacific, which was of not insignificant importance.
I agree with of your points but others no.
The Spitfire with the help of the P40, P38 and P47 cleaned the Mediterranean. In that order.
What Spain and Morocco has to do with the P38 I have no idea.
The bomber escorts, didn't go so well until early 1944 when longer range P47 finally had the range to escorts the bombers all the way.
@@samuelgordino
The Morocco thing was an incident involving Spanish He 112’s shooting down a P 38 that wandered into Spanish Moroccan airspace. In response the US Army Air Force flew everything through Moroccan airspace letting them know that they were not going to tolerate that sort of behavior, and it worked. It is more of a joke reference. Also the clearing of Tunisia, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica of Luftwaffe and Aeronautica Militare forces was the main air battle that the Axis Forces never recovered from for the rest of the war in the Mediterranean.
@@XDHannah
It wasn’t called Fork Tailed Devil for nothing.
I'm not surprised that the P-38 was so widely in demand until late-war fighters became available in sufficient numbers; it had the range, speed, firepower, climb/dive rate, and maneuverability to fly missions WAY farther than any other fighter in the war and still perform them with great success. They made a whole slew of missions even possible in the first place. And in the theaters where operational range was such a decisive factor for whether or not entire strategies could be employed (Pacific and European especially), that's priceless.
Keep on doing something different, Greg. The wealth of knowledge you share is unsurpassed.
Once agin another fine job and informitive video i would like to add that even with its later war drawbacks the Ge rmans refered to it as the fork-tailed devil im sure do c to causing them bigger issues then say range power or compressability lol keep up the good work
Greg’s straightforward presentation cannot hide his passion for these planes and the technology they embody. Plus, his keen historical sense puts it all into perspective and makes these videos without equal. Thanks.
If you like the style, check out hypohysterical history, he does exactly the same thing with battles in the Pacific. He's an Aussie so it's from that perspective but it's fantastic.
DON'T change your format. It's unique and one of the best channels for in-depth content!
This was my favorite WW2 fighter when I was a kid. I still love it, but nowadays I lean more towards the P-47.
If you love war birds, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel is just the best content you can find on RUclips. Thank you Greg.
I feel that the reasons the P38 suffered so badly from compressibility go beyond simply Lockheed encountering it first and not having the knowledge on how to solve it - rather the P38's own layout unfortunately exacerbated the compressibility issue.
The transonic area rule tells us that a smooth variation in cross sectional area from nose to tail gives us the lowest transonic drag by minimising shockwave formation. While no WW2 plane was particularly stellar in adhering to area rule, which had not been discovered at the time, the P38 diverges from it extremely badly due to that very long straight wing as well as all the engines and associated bulges occupying roughly the same cross sectional plane. This would result in a really large shockwave blanketing the entire wing at a far lower Mach number than conventional layouts, and is something that couldn't really be solved without knowing about area rule.
it really desperately needed thinner wings too
The area rule is about reducing drag in the transonic range to facilitate acceleration past that range. Lack of area rule is not the source of the P-38 control issues under compressibility., and no WWII fighters were designed to the area rule The thickly cambered airfoil section of the P-38 lead to early formation of a normal shock wave and its attendant effects. Also, reportedly the venturi effect between the gondola and the engine booms accelerated the airflow even more than the airfoil section alone would have. Ironically, thinner lower drag airfoil sections were available for use by Lockheed, but according to Warren Bodie they chose the thicker airfoil in order to meet the challenging time to climb requirement of the Army P-38 specification.
I do agree that while the P-38 may have been the first practical design to encounter a compressibility limit, NACA was aware of compressibility in the early 1930s and I can't believe Kelly Johnson was completely unaware of the phenomenon. Designing to control it was certainly not yet ingrained into the art of airplane design.
@@gort8203 I understand that the area rule is to ensure low wave drag, and that you can point to specific locations which are easy shock formation regions. But seeing as wave drag is a result of shock formation, isn't departure from area rule a good rule-of-thumb indicator for how intense shock formation around the airframe would be?
@@dsdy1205 I don't know that the "intensity" of shock waves is affected by area rule, but intensity of the shock is not the issue for the P-38 -- the issue is the airspeed at which the shock begins to form, AKA the critical Mach number.
The effect of area rule is to reduce interference drag. I do not know that it retards the normal formation of shock waves -- it just allows them to cause less drag. Area rule solves a power-required issue rather than a controllability issue, which is what we are talking about with P-38 compressibility. Maybe someone out there with more expertise can elaborate.
"Compressibility" was a known issue in WWI. No kidding.
One fact that the P-38 has that it was still competitive in 44/45 against newer planes. For design that was very cutting edge in the 30's that is a testament to Lockheed's design team. They created a great design for the 30's that could be updated so it staid competitive at the end of WWII.
Its just the question of which P38 variant (or which Bf109 for that matter).
Designed by "Kelly" Johnson who also designed the SR 71 Blackbird
@@karlvongazenberg8398 Or Spitfire. All were 1930 fighters that fought in 1945.
@@Nastyswimmer Now there is an amazing career for you... Kelly Johnson. First plane to exceed 400mph in level flight and hit compressibility... and his last flew so fast it heated up and lengthened in flight by how many inches?! To the point it it was fueled like a leaking tea kettle and didn't stop leaking until it was supersonic... Now there is some serious perspective on the evolution of technology!
@@karlvongazenberg8398 Although the earlier variants up to the "J" made up the early planes, the J and L made up the most volume. I have read that the J-25 and L variants were by far the best versions of the P-38 at all altitudes and conditions. I'm assuming that is true for the BF109 and the FW190 although development for them likely slowed as the war progressed.
Your channel is the only one out of least a thousand that I subscribe to that I really look forward to new videos! You do such a great job describing these aircraft and make it very interesting and informative!! Thank you Greg!!!
Agreed. The only problem I have with Greg's channel is that he needs to quit having a life outside of RUclips so he can generate more content. 😬
Him and Drachinafel and the Chieftan.
How do you subscribe to so many channels?
I wish I had that much time.
According to Martin Caidin in Fork Tailed Devil, the major problem in the wing mounted intercoolers was any backfiring could warp the leading edge of the wing. So the J model scrapped that and extra fuel tanks were fitted into that space.
👍👍
Most importantly, the '38 was the coolest looking fighter plane on the planet!
still is
You’re welcome Greg, it’s a privilege to be a part of the 80k.
The concept of entertaining people by showing graphs and old pictures of aeroplanes with a talk-over is normally doomed to fail. But not here. All those countless hours of watching this channel have proven it to be quite the contrary. I´ve learned a lot. Many "myths" have been given an understandable, real-world explanation, just like here the reasons for favouring the P-51 over the P-38. Keep up your good work and keep videos coming. I´m here for the entertainment, but of course, it doesn´t hurt to know more about these beautiful machines either!
I don’t care how the “Discovery Channel” style RUclipsrs do it. Keep doing it your way.
Re: the end of your video. I'm here exactly because your videos Are longer and more in-depth. I've already read the Wikipedia and I'm always hungry for more information. You deliver.
As an aside, wwiiaircraftperformance has a really interesting article on the 38, especially regarding the carb air temp issues. It seems that Lockheed may have been excessively conservative in their 50°C rating, and that there may have been significant headroom for further manifold pressure (at low alts) and carb temp, even on the old intercoolers.
Can't agree more, I'm here because your videos get into the nitty gritty aspects of aircraft design.
Tech details. Good dessert.
Wikipedia is good for basic facts. Like any encyclopaedia, it a) can be incorrect, and b) doesn't do research.
All the channels I follow have something new or original to say.
Thanks Greg. It's nice to see that your work is appreciated!
@@AndrewBlucher Also with current issues and their "no original research"-rule it makes them heavily dependant on either media reporting or tertiary sources.
If either is Biased and the editors do not take care to add balanced research, articles can be at the least one-sided, if not flat out wrong.
And the Wikipedia leadership has shown political bias in recent years.
@@LupusAries Political bias?
Please expand on this point.
I suspect that depends on one's politics :-)
To be alive in the 21st century and be able to see and understand the historical paradyme shift of WW II !!!!
@Daniel Large in case you're not being sarcastic, it's 'paradigm'.
@Daniel Large you need more to do. Sitting around pointing out spelling errors is not becoming. He was making an important point.
@@mikebeard8505 Mike, many of your sentences appear to be fragments...Oh my! Additionally, you should ALWAYS capitalize the first word of a sentence. Finally, don't be quite such a boring asshole; when someone corrects your grammar, they're only trying to be helpful.
I'm grateful that I'm alive today and not fighting in the trenches of WWI...or maybe I was, in another life. If that's the case, I'm thankful that I don't remember fighting in the trenches of WWI (all that mustard gas, peeing on my gas mask to get it to work properly, mud, hearing the whistle and"over the top" facing machine guns and artillery, rats, disease, no man's land and barbed wire, the rations, etc.
Truly feels like a blessing to be in reach of this information
whoooo, this day went from boring to amazing. love your content Mr. Greg
Greg is his first name, dude. It's Mr Airplanes and Automobiles.
Helping the algorithm here. You are my go to reference when conversations about WW2 aircraft come up. I find extra benefit by your detailed explanations of engineering considerations which far exceed ground school material taught to private pilots.
Greg:
As a non-pilot aviation enthusiast, I think I've learned more from your channel than any other source. You've helped me see airplanes like the P-38 and P-47 in a completely new light, as well as gain a much deeper, richer understanding of the engineering that went into making them.
One request: Please do something about NACA, and the role that it played in bringing aeronautical engineering to the heights it reached. As late as the 1990s automobile makers (apparently bereft of their own wind tunnels) were putting "NACA ducts" on their cars to provide a source of low-drag air inlets.
Love your channel, many Thanks!
A video ON the NACA ducts themselves would be great and an excellent crossover for automobile enthusiasts to find Greg's work!
I have been curious about the science behind them and how it was worked out myself.
NACA ducts are still used in high performance cars today. For exaple, the Porsche GT2 RS has them. They're not super common now on cars' exterior, but many still use them for secondary ducts on the floor.
NACA ducts were originally designed as inlets for subsonic jet aircraft. When mounted close to the nose, they can reduce parasitic drag compared to a conventional ("pitot") inlet, because they avoid the protrusion of such an inlet (hence their origianl name of a submerged inlet) and the associated increase in wetted area. They're also lighter.
However, as a jet inlet they are inferior to a pitot inlet, because the ram pressure recovery is much lower (about 90% for a good NACA duct, nearly 100% for a pitot at subsonic speeds), and they can't supply high mass flow like a pitot.
They are suitable for applications where pressure recovery isn't very important (so not for feeding an engine, yes for cooling air), and where mass flow isn't very high.
I’m a young man who has studied enough aviation history so that by the time the other formulaic 12 minute aviation RUclips videos broke out into RUclips these last 5 years, I essentially already know more than they do. This is one of the only spots on RUclips where I can continue to learn in one of the most relaxing ways possible. I wish I could financially contribute but I’m hoping these comment helps the algorithm
despite the downsides an impressive and really beautiful plane with plenty of unused potential. Thanks for your valuable insights from Germany
"Forked Tailed Devil" by Martin Caiden. A book that was originally released in 1974. Updated several times. A good account of the P-38 in ETO and PTO.
I could listen to you go into detailed description of a WW2 era doorknob.
The appreciation goes both ways. Thank You for the fascinating history and context of the engineering involved with these incredible air*craft
33:50 those 12 minute format RUclips channels are great for getting new and younger individuals interested in the history. As you can see there are quite a few channels in that niche. On the flip side there are very few if no other channels which provide such in depth long format content presented as more of a college level discourse.
to be fair, I agree; when I see a six hour special Q&A, or a two hour video, I do tend to shy away... horses for courses I suppose.
The other thing those 12 minute formats all seem to have in common is a computerized voice.
The History Guy is a good example of that, his videos are 100% accurate and don't just repeat myths like so many shorter videos do while not boring someone to death.
I can watch an hour and a half long video on myths of WW2 that basically is just a speaker at the George Marshall Center but I get where someone half my age (or worse ⅓rd my age, yikes) wouldn't make it through something like that.
Another great presentation Greg. As a former USN officer & WWII history buff, I did enjoy your Dauntless and Corsair series. I attended classes at the Naval War college that were not as detailed as your presentations. Keep up the great work.
Sorry, I ment to say Thunderbolt
I and at least 80 thousand other people appreciate the interesting content Greg.
It is refreshing how down to earth you are. Funny, considering you make your regular living in the air.
Keep it up! :)
You beat them all by 3 things: 1 you are a pilot. 2 you.also an enthusiast and 3 a great teacher. Thank you so much for taking. The time to do this
My uncle was a "38" capt. in the 475th. I now have a better appreciation for his ability. Because of this video, I can ask some educated questions when I meet with his children at our family reunions, if not I will ask him in heaven. Your video was factual, again thanks for the enrichment. cr
Yet another informative video Greg.
During the 1942/43 time frame in the Mediterranean Theatres and in the Pacific, the only land based airplanes around in number were the venerable Spitfire Mk-V, P-40, P-39s and maybe a few Spit Mk-IXs. The P-38 was a great aircraft during a difficult time for the allies.
Congrats on 80K subs as well. You have earned everyone of them.
Maybe some Spitfire VIII which had a greater range than the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire IX was a spitfire V with a Merlin 61 engine whereas the Spitfire VIII was purpose built.
The original P-38 strikes me as an art deco masterpiece.
I appreciate your format. It is very respectful of others. No ambiance (they call a few bars music), no hype, just factual information clearly presented in a non boring fashion.
I first learned of the P-38 in a book i read in elementary school titled Great American Fighter Pilots of WW2. I would credit that book with starting my interest with military history and particularly WW2 american fighter planes. Your channel is fantastic to watch and listen to.
You are doing extremely well with running the channel differently from others aviation channels. That`s why I consider you a pinnacle from factual and technological perspective. Thank you for another amazing video.
About not having as many views as other channels: I firmly believe that your work is far more educational and valuable. Some day, these videos will become part of history, no doubt. You're actually documenting history here, not just making entertainment videos.
Greg I love your channel, please keep it up. I finally got to listen to your “debate” on P-47 range and would like to pass in a few quick thoughts.
First…some of the P-38 story in the ETO supports your argument on the Bomber Mafia’s lack of effort on the P-47 range. Yes, the P-38 certainly had issues, more so in the ETO than elsewhere. However, much could have been done if leadership decided to make addressing the problems a priority and “kicked some ass”. The cockpit heating/defrosting is one example and the dive flaps (passively shrugging shoulder and not demanding immediate replacement shipment) is another.
Second…while hardware was one issue that betrayed lack of focus “mindware” (fighter tactics) was another. Even when escorts started becoming available Eaker refused to change tactics that’s one of the reasons he got fired.
I’m a long time bomber guy. You got the mindset exactly right. Ideologues have a hard time shedding long held beliefs, even in the face of (unpleasant) evidence.
Keep it up, God Bless
Marc J Dinerstein, COL, USAF (ret)
The P-38 did have issues, but none were as bad as losing 60 bombers in one day. I submit to you that having a P-38 with issues is better than no fighter escorts at all, and the stats clearly back that up. Bomber losses when escorted by fighters were drastically lower than without.
Other channels may get more views, but IMO this channel is better.
Thanks. I have noticed that the formula for getting view is to make a short video with facts from Wikipedia and add some mood music to the commentary. I'm amazed that works.
I wonder what the P-38 could have been if it had the chance to benefit from the knowledge that made the P-47 and the P-51 so successful, would it still have allowed it to be more competitive with the other types?
Probably.
I imagine it would have a longer nose that can better hide the guns to reduce drag there.
Most likely a change with the figuration of the turbo charger to improve drag and cooling, same with the oil and water raditors.
But I'm no expert, maybe it couldn't be changed much back then. If someone made a modern version of a fighting p-38 it probably would be far better without question. Again tho I'm no expert.
I just like imagining cool aircraft being even cooler.
@@silvereyes3243 yes indded, better aerodynamics for the ports of the gun barrels, aerodynamic fairings over the turbo exit areas, more streamlined 'NACA' flush ducts on the various positions of the plane... Also, the entire vertical & horizontal tail planes would have moved to accomadate the effects of compressability during trans-sonic dives .... But little was known about compressability in the late 1930's, when that plane specification was met and exceeded.... However, Kelly Johnson more than made up for these oversights when organizing the design teams of the F-104, the U-2, the A-12, the SR-71. Those planes were amazing!!!
@@michaelmartinez1345 Can't fight ya on that one! Makes me kinda wonder how the p-38 and other aircraft would look like in modern times if they where updated with the knowledge we know now.
@@silvereyes3243 these planes are classic!!! Another change would be the switch to the powerful and reliable PT-6 turbo-shaft engines, and like you suggested , a lengthened main fuselage with 3 more tandem seats and more room in the booms for cargo and HVAC / pressurization in the fuse... It would be like an executive's hot-rod... The only thing that would stop it from being made, would be the million$ to be able to make a few copies of it...
@@dukeford8893 if the performance had improved enough it wouldn't matter
Well the 35 minute videos are the biggest selling point... plus the detailed information. That is the reason i am here.
Hi Greg. You were asking about more sources concerning the leading edge intercoolers of earlier P 38. You will find everything about the development of the V-1710 in this outstanding book: Vee's for Victory. The story of the Allison V-1710 Engine from 1929 -1948 from Daniel D. Whitney. On page 143 you'll find a picture with all the plumping to and from that intercooler.
I remember reading in the Len Deighton novel Fighter (about a P-51 squadron operating from England) some of the pro P-38 and P-47 advocates having it pointed out that it wasn't just the cost of those planes, it was also their weight. Concrete landing strips had to be thicker to accommodate them etc. The cheaper, lighter P51 was logistically a better choice if you wanted to expand an air force quickly. And as the Luftwaffe discovered - quantity is a quality...
I'll forever love this plane but I do agree that cost is an often overlooked problem. Even if you could make the case for general equivalent performance to the P51 and P47, you can't get past price tag.
Another point was the lost opportunity to have them flying in the Battle of Britain. The British and French insisted on non-tubocharged versions, and they turned out to be useless. The French capitulated before receiving any of their aircraft, and the British cancelled their order after only 25 planes were delivered.
I call this a lost opportunity, because it could have given the P38 an earlier start in the ETO, with more experienced (British) pilots, while fighting defensively over friendly soil. The P38 had many problems, but darned if it didn't have a tough role to fill, because it was always taking the fight to the enemy with American pilots that generally didn't have as much time flying combat.
No disrespect to the Spitfire, but it led a comparably charmed life during the war. It's short range meant it rarely had to stray far from home. And with such high sortie count over home soil, the planes, tactics, and pilots evolved rapidly.
Different strokes.
Spitfire was an INTERCEPTOR.
It was not designed to fly escort missions. In 1940 it did exactly what it was designed to do. Intercept enemy bombers.
@@sugarnads By taking out all the guns and putting in extra fuel tanks, the Spitfire became a very capable reconnaissance plane.
@@sugarnads From what I've read, Spitfires were used to Intercept fighter escorts, [as there weren't enough Spitfires to go around in 40/41].
Hurricanes tended to be used for bombers where their lower speed wasn't a handicap.
@@sugarnads Actually, the P38 was officially designated an interceptor, as well. Only it was intended to intercept larger bombers over greater distances. But again, distances at the beginning of the war in Europe were generally shorter, so long range was not generally required. Even most German aircraft were range limited because (again, generally) Blitzkrieg didn't require large, heavy fighters to fly long distance combat missions.
your video's are better the real numbers from actual authentic period sources that allow real unbiased comparisons, the only channel that I've ever found that I can say that about. The 38 is such a unique design, a personal favorite, I've been looking forward to one of you're videos about it, always wanted to know if it was really possible for a "fighter" this big to really compete with say a Mustang or a 190
“The primary goal was to destroy the Luftwaffe, so they couldn’t oppose the D-Day landings.” Spot on. And not just on D-Day. The Allies had learned from observing Germany’s conquests in Europe from 1939 to 1941 that air supremacy was crucial to the success of a modern army’s ground operations. Victory in Europe would necessarily require utter destruction of German air power, so that’s what they did. Greg did an excellent job of explaining this in the P47 series. Also, the excellent book “Masters of the Air” goes into some good detail on this topic.
I would say compressibility was an famous problem of P-38, this actually reached combat operations when Robin Olds flew his P-38 “Scat III” to dive to attack a German fighter that was on fellow pilot’s tail, when he tried to attack the German he dived too fast P-38 which led to the control surfaces on his P-38 to lock up in 90 degree dive which was sign of the compressibility issue which led him to recover the aircraft at denser air at low altitude and also led to his P-38 canopy window tore off. This is recreated on the History Channel’s Dogfights in the season two episode Risky Air Ambush in Vietnam.
Great video, as always.
It is amazing how quickly aviation was changing in the ‘30s. Airplanes went from world-beater to obsolete in just a few years.
Those who are P-38 fans need to read Bodie's book on the plane, or if they can find his series of articles in Wings and Airpower magazines, they will be well informed.
bodie is the best. jeff ethell/joe christy's book is also excellent. and "america's hundred thousand"
This. Absolutely. Many of the other sources available have inaccurate information. I can't count how many WW2 history books provide inaccurate accounts of the air war and the P-38 in particular. While I don't agree with all of Bodie's conclusions, he did an excellent job of research and citing his sources.
It is important to recognize that there were multiple interest groups putting out mis-information. There was a strong bias against the P-38, both as a twin engine fighter, and as a direct conflict with the doctrine that the bomber groups could protect themselves without fighter escort. Once the self-defending bomber doctrine failed, there was strong incentive to say that they didn't have any other option but to fly un-escorted. Many history books still say that the bombers flew un-escorted because no escort fighter was available until the P-51, which is clearly untrue. The P-38 was available right from the beginning, and had the range to escort almost to Berlin, and cover more than 2/3 of almost every other bombing route, even before the wing inter-coolers were changed to extra internal fuel tanks. (ac contrasted to the P-47 which could barely cover the bombers across the channel) They magnified the flaws of the P-38 as a way to justify not using it, when most of the flaws could be (and were, in other theaters) mitigated with better training, maintenance practices, and command emphasis on fixing the problems rather than complaining about them.
By the time Doolittle took over, he had a huge morale and command problem to deal with. It was easier for him to replace the P-38 with the P-51 rather than try to overcome the bad mindset that many of the pilots and commanders had towards the airplane. It was also cheaper, reduced maintenance and logistics, and simplified training, but none of those issues prevented the P-38 from continuing to be produced and being used in all theaters till the end of the war.
@@dougreed7641and between all those sources one can get the true 👍story of the P-38. And Greg has explained why the plane was so successful in the Pacific, not so with the Mighty Eighth.
There was one 9th AF group, the 474th, flew the P-38 thru the end of the war.
The P-38K with new paddle bladed props was not approved for production as the thrust line of the engines was altered and production would have been slowed or stopped to allow this.
The two major failings of the USAAF in regards to the Lighting were, in my opinion the failure to establish a second production source until very late in the war, and not fitting the R-R Merlin 60 series engine early in the war...like the Mustang was. There was a P-38 in England that was slated to receive the Merlin in the summer of 1944, but the project was canceled by orders from Washington. This would have been too late in the war to make a difference.
@@alantoon5708 The research I have done has actually focused earlier in the process. If Lockheed had been required (and resourced) to produce an additional line of P-38s instead of B-17s, they likely would have had the manufacturing flexibility to make more changes without disrupting all production. It was the Army Air Corps focus on mass producing bombers (both in their requirements from Lockheed, and their allocation of resources over all) in order to validate their doctrines that prevented the P-38 from being manufactured in the numbers that it should have been.
Having additional production lines would have affected the issues with producing the P-38J, and might have made the P-38H compromise version unnecessary. (it would also have made the P-38k easier to build without delaying production) As far as i can find out, the manufacturing decisions that had the greatest effect on the P-38's contributions in Europe happened in '42, and early '43. By the time the Army Air Corps realized that their key doctrinal concepts were wrong, it was too late, and they were scrambling to catch up.
The P-38s were so valuable, even in the earlier models, in every theater that the performance gains of the P-38k were not worth the delays in production. It just took the 8th AF tens of thousands of dead crew members to realize how valuable fighter escort was (and by default, the P-38, since it was the only fighter with the range to do it in '42 and '43. No offense to the lovers of the P-47, but the P-47 was unnecessary as a point defense fighter in England since the battle of Britain was over and not to be repeated, and it was wholly inadequate in range to perform the escort role. They had a lot of them on hand, and they made the best use of them that they could, but they could barely make it across the channel until drop tanks were developed for them. The 8th AF would have been much better served with P-38s).
The original P-38s that flew to England with the first wave of bombers could have saved thousands of lives if they had been used for bomber escort. The fact that they weren't wanted by the 8th AF, and the that there weren't enough planes for both bomber escort and the African Campaign shows that the P-38 was undervalued and production priorities were too heavily balanced towards Bombers, and that decision cost a lot of lives.
U.S. war production was run by General William S. Knudsen. Before that he was president of GM which owned Allison. Allison had already been replaced by RR on the P-51, no way they were going to let it happen on the P-38. This also explains all the time and effort wasted on GM designed and built P-75 Eagle.
One serious logistical issue posed by the P-38 was that not only did it have two engines but that the engines were "handed", which is to say, the engines turned in opposite directions. That was good for the pilot because it eliminated the detrimental aerodynamic effects of engine torque on the aircraft's handling, but it also made the aircraft far more complicated to maintain. That was because, not only did each engine have two engines and propellors to maintain, but it had two DIFFERENT engines and propellors to maintain. Although both engines in the P-38 were Allisons, many of their parts were not interchangeable. That may not have been an issue at air bases back home, but it certainly was in more primitive conditions at the front lines, where access to spare parts was more difficult. Americans frequently compare British twin-engine fighters, such as the Mosquito and Beaufighter, unfavorably with the P-38 because they did not have "handed" engines. However, that was not because the British did not understand the aerodynamic advantage of "handed" engines, but because they deliberately opted for the logistic advantage of the relative simplicity of using two of the same engines over the complexity of having to maintain two different types of engines in each aircraft.
The Allison V-1710 was designed to be reversible-- not only for counter-rotating twin-engined airplanes, but to switch from a tractor configuration to a pusher one in airship applications.
Engine rotation was determined by which way you installed the crankshaft-- to convert the engine you flipped the crank around and re-wired one bank of sparkplugs into the correct firing order.
A left-handed engine had the same parts as a right-handed one, with maybe the addition of an idler gear on the accessory power train and a new starter to crank it the other way. But logistically speaking you can convert the motors over at the depot level or even in the field.
You don't have to understand it to appreciate the quality here.... so you go on. ..... and it's so good .... you understand it!
"The British shot down that C-54." Thought we were on the same side!
Seems like a story there?
Probably misidentified it as a Focke-Wulf Kondor.
www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-friendly-fire-incident-hamstrung-the-p-38/
The C-54 flew to the Canary Islands to refuel. Leaving the Canary Islands it flew close to a British convoy. The British had a jeep carrier and Wildcat fighters (both supplied by the USA, I believe) to protect the convoy and for some reason the C-54's friend or foe ID system was not engaged and
a Martlet (British name for the Wildcat) shot the transport down. Unfortunate as the 6 man crew of the transport were lost and the Condor, other than having 4 engines, is substantially different in appearance than the C-54.
Look at the bombing missions of the Felusia gap (probably misspelled) when the Germans retreated from Normandy after D-day. Also while in Vietnam a short round that airburst iin the trees over them Killed 5 of our snipers. I remember commenting oops short round, while On firebase John Henry with the 1/14 Infantry, 4th Infantry Division not a good day. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.
It was the end for C-54 and its crew, and a very bad day for the Martlet pilots who had to live with their mistake.
I'm a docent at the Mighty 8th in Pooler, GA, and this channel has corrected or expanded on information I had been taught or had read over many years. How might have the Regansburg/ Schweinfurt gone if the P-47s had a full complement of tanks VS what happened? Thanks to you Greg I found out that this disasterous raid's losses didn't need to be as bad.
Thanks for your kind words. I have heard the Mighty 8th museum is really good. Had the 47's had drop tanks losses would have been a lot lower, I would guess they would have been at least 50 percent lower, probably more.
@@johnbrewer8954 You should probably watch some of his other videos
@@johnbrewer8954 another butthurt brit
Colonel Robin Olds Loved The P-38 Lightning 😊😎
My mother-in-law worked as a riveter on P-38's at the Lockheed factory south of S.F. Just aft of the trailing edge of the wing. Great video and info on the Lightning.
About that last segment, yeah, don't change a damn thing. It's incredibly nice to be able to just listen about WW2 aircraft engineering with zero distractions. Keep up the great work!
This Ole lady asked and answered a lot of questions from the time pencil was first put to paper till it became moot point.
I wonder how many pilots limped one home with an engine out that had they been in a single engine aircraft might not have made it?
Thanks Greg!
I had a book about the Pacific Theater as a kid. One of the pictures showed a p-38 with a dead engine and feathered prop on one side...and a hole big enough to see the Japanese home islands thru in the other wing. Twin-engine redundancy must've been greatly appreciated over the vast shark-infested waters.
@@paulslevinsky580 Just have Red West stick a few beer cans in the holes and she will be fine!
*props to anybody that knows where that visual comes from.
@@sadwingsraging3044
Black Sheep Squadron, originally called Baa Baa Black Sheep until it's syndication when it was changed to Black Sheep Squadron.
And Red West was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia" along with sharing some song writing credits on a few of his big hits.
@@dukecraig2402 where do I mail your cigar?!!?
Snuck in to fish his bass pond as a kid a few times! Had some nice fish he did.
@@sadwingsraging3044
Oh wow, no kidding.
Him and Elvis had that falling out over him writing that tell all book, but the very things he exposed Elvis for in it and had tried to put an end to, namely being addicted to pills, were the very things that were his undoing and ultimately led to his death.
Didn't West have a brother who was also a member of the Memphis Mafia?
Speed of sound changes with temperature, not altitude..... mind blown. Do not doubt the Greg!
The P38 excelled in the PTO where long range and twin engines over flights across large expanses of water were and advantage. The fights against the lightly armoured Japanese planes were at lower relative altitudes and in more temperate climate which suited the P38.
You are indeed doing something different, and those of us who appreciate reading and seeing information that is thoroughly researched and not regurgitated are glad you are doing what you're doing and hope you continue to do so. It's clear your motivation is the love of the topic not subs are ad revenue.
Your in depth vids are simply great. They are what make the web so much fun. And besides they are intelligent.Keep up the great work.
Suddenly I became an addict to watch a long video from a guy giving a detailled technical description of WW2 planes.
Thanks Greg for your great and simple explanation of this nice plane and its problems.
I lived just outside of Middlesboro as a boy and got to see Glacier Girl quite a bit. Definitely colored my preferences for fighter aircraft. P-38 and P-61 are gorgeous in a brutal sort of way.
Greg, your channel outclasses the others by a wide margin. In fact I’ve seen your videos used as sources on many WW2 aircraft discussion forums. Keep up the good work!!
I think you should definitely keep doing this channel your way. This type of fact-heavy, leave-no-stone-unturned type of channel makes for such an important historical resource.
The only suggestion I might make is that the audio quality could be better, although I’m no expert and please take that with a pinch of salt.
Greg, you are the best. Your research, analysis, and objective opinion are first rate. As an aging Boomer who made numerous Monogram, Lindbergh, and Revell models of WWII Fighter Aircraft, learning the details of their development, performance, and strengths & weaknesses is most enjoyable for me. Thank you.
This video made me recall an article by a pilot who flew P-38's in the ETO. He said the two things that bothered him the most were the lack of cockpit heat that required him to wear three pairs of gloves and a roll rate similar to a pregnant whale. Thanks!
Thank you for being a source of good information, and not a money making channel.
I do make some money on this channel. Thankfully, otherwise the wife would think it's a waste of time.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles even if you did it for free, it would never be a waste of time in my eyes. Persuading your wife might be the hard bit. But I totally agree - rehashed videos with mood music are never going to be as good as material that involves primary research and a real understanding of how things fly. Just finishing an Airfix 1:72 Lancaster B.III enlightened by your B-17 video.... and sighing a little :-(
Just found this channel from the previous video on the P-38. Pretty cool video, ended up finishing it just in time for this!
hope we’ll hear more about the P38K in this series. such a funny bird
Id rather watch an hour long video than any of those other channels 12 minute summary videos.
Keep up the great work Greg, your videos are better than anything out there.
Been looking forward to this video. Thank you Greg for all the great content.
A very close friend of my family was a supervisor in the P-38 factrory in Chatsworth if I remember the location correctly. He talked about the pilots in the area that would fly over the factory in the evening and pull a vertical climb over the factory as thank you to the workers.
Don't ever stop making content like this. You are revolutionizing the general understanding of warbirds and engines.
Wasn't expecting the British to shoot down the C-54 full of upgrade parts, had a little chuckle when I heard that line.
I love your format and detail, please keep on doing these
1875 horsepower *Per Side!!!*
That P-38K would have been an absolute _screamer_ if it got those paddle props.
Damn.
The three Mustang formation pic at beginning of vid has LouIV, neat. I worked on restorations and warbird maintenance for a guy who had a restored Mustang painted as LouIV, in Kenosha. Unfortunately he crashed it in a Waukegan forest due to a fuel-selector valve issue; happily, no one was hurt despite both wings getting ripped off. I believe he either had it restored or acquired another P-51 (from a Mustang shop in Montana, mayne?) but I’m unsure of the paint scheme. This was around 25yrs ago. It was nearly a religious experience seeing it every day after showing up to work, and having the privilege of actually working on it was a memorable experience.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm proud to be a Patreon, Greg. Terrific video.
ME TOO!
love your channel, always so spot on and informative, cheers from Florida, Paul
In the mid Seventies in DownUnderVille, a 10 year old me would get a crisp orange $20 note to go buy all the newspapers on a Sunday morning. Left over money was for craft magazine and comics. I would get Commando comics. According to WikiP, they are still in production. I remember the one about the P38. It was, to me, a story to try and change the narrative. It starts out with flight characteristics and how the pilot was deathly afraid to bail due to being caught by the chute on the boom. It ended with the devastating concentration of firepower and of course, the pilot making a successful bail out. It's funny what you remember from forty+ years ago. Thanks for taking me back to a very happy time.
Just now (2 years later) noticing this, but the question about carrier expendability is an interesting one for a wartime publication. I'm guessing the answers would have been vastly different in London and Pearl Harbor…
I appreciate the way you do things here! Thank you!
Thanks Greg, I appreciate your videos specifically for that care you take in synthesizing a view from primary sources, and being clear about the limitations of that knowledge. Please keep it up. Cheers!
Dear everyone - share Gregs vids faaar and wide....lets get that 100k figure he TRULY deserves
“Fortress Europe”, that’s kind of catchy Senior Greg, i like it🤔
Good work Greg! Keep up the good, detailed work. You have your niche, and do it uniquely well!
Your videos fill a hole that has needed to be filled for some time now, Greg. I am so grateful for the information you share. It’s things I’ve wanted to know my whole life and now it’s here.
What's not to like? I appreciate accurate, unbiased information set in proper historical context. And, you cover the classic aircraft that interest me. You've earned another subscriber.
I appreciate that, I am trying hard here.
In the Pacific marine F4U Corsairs were bomber escorts. They can be added to the P-38/P-47/P-51D trifecta of bomber escorts
Great job as usual Greg! I have no idea how you find this information, but I'm sure glad that you do find it, digest it, and present it here for the rest of us.
More excellent information from Greg that captures my complete attention without mood music.
my oldest uncle on my mothers side was a AAF(?) Pilot of the Lightening Fighter plane in the European(??) WW2 campaign..fun fact!
Much obliged for your patient, well-organized explanations of the most
important facts and problems encountered by pilots flying each aircraft type. "Sweating the details" is essential to understanding just how great the effort was in prosecuting the war.
Your teaching style is reflects both grave respect to those who bore the burdens of fighting and the
interests of the broad audience you've cultivated.
Holy cow Greg, just a fantastic job again!
I have learned so much from watching your channel over the years. Thank you so so much!