Lightning Strikes! The Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Part 3)

[@MaxPalmer-1]

This video correctly notes many of the major aerodynamic and mechanical problems of the P-38. To add to those is that the heavyweight P-38 cost $120k and in Europe scored a kill to loss ratio of only 1.43 (this includes enemy planes destroyed on the ground). Since its victims were almost all low cost single engine light fighters, it actually lost in the war of attrition. The lightweight P-51 Mustang cost $50k each and scored a kill to loss of 3.6. Per plane the Mustang was 2.5x better, and per dollar it was 6x better. With superior bomber escort ability due to longer range and better kill ratio that reduced bomber losses by more than half, the Mustang's effect on the war was over 10x better per dollar than the P-38. The Lightning did do well in the Pacific against obsolete Zeros, but the longer range Mustang would have done even better for less than half the cost. The Lightning was a costly mistake for the United States in WWII, as heavy fighters almost always are. The only thing heavy fighters do well is to double the budgets and aircraft manufacturer profits for a given number of airplanes. Then when their poor kill-loss ratios require even more airplanes to be bought, still more taxpayer funded profits are generated. Cha-Ching!

[@picklerick8785]

I can't believe that a dude flew a P-38 into a pine tree and didn't die. I can't imagine how he explained that one back at base. "So there I was, shooting the shit out of this German, when a Nazi tree attacked me!"

[@shawnkelley9035]

The problem he was staying is what anyone had to do with all fighter at the time of the beginning of the war. It was only after augmentation that this was alleviated.

[@arnijulian6241]

Considering a Mitsubishi A6M Zero could only get 329mph this is why the Lockheed P-38 Lightning could compete in the pacific as the older models were about 360Mph with latest J about 395ph. Fw 190 & the Bf109 let alone all the better planes the Germans had speed far in excess of 400Mph with the exception of the early E model of the BF109 being about 342 & by the G model with methanol injection it achieved 428mph reliably let the the H model over 470MPH. British Mk1 spitfire was 360mph but you couldn't do all them fancy upside down manoeuvres like on German planes as no fuel injection but old reliable carburettors which the penny valve did mitigate much of this issue allowing for some level of inverted movement but never matched. ''Squadron Leader Anthony F Martindale’s dive in a Mark XI Spitfire in April 1944, reaching a speed of Mach 0.92 (approximately 640 mph or 1,030 km/h), the fastest ever recorded in a piston-engined aircraft.'' Honestly the British & Germans were in a whole different scale of warfare in Europe & north Africa compared to the pacific theatre. ''In low-altitude flight, the Merlin-powered Mustang could reach speeds up to 490 mph, as seen in Unlimited racing applications (where Merlin manifold pressures were increased to 145 inHg).'' P51 was the USA's best plane especially at low altitude & it used the British Merlin as it power plant. If not the P51 mustang then the P47 thunderbolt was the USA best plane though not a fighter in reality even if they called it one as it was used in Ground support & modest bombing. Why the USA even used Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress with 4800Ib capacity to shy of 2000miles when the P-47 Thunderbolt carried 3000Ib's in P-47 with three drop tanks arrangements range was 1,200 miles with rom for rockets but honestly they should have slapped more drop tanks on. Worse decision the USA did was to use B-17 Flying Fortress into the 1941 let alone into 1945. So many lost for no reason! Consolidated B-24 Liberator & P47 thunderbolt were suitable planes for bombing but B-17 should never have been used by the time the USA entered the war.

[@arnijulian6241]

The British rejected the B17 flying fortress for use while only 143 aircraft (Lightning I) in 2 variants used for indirect low threat actions. Consider how desperate Britain was for any aircrafts in 1941 yet still rejected the B-17 & used the lightning in very limited number. P40 Kittyhawk was the only USA fighter in the early war British pilots talked well of from what I have read that the USA renamed tomahawk & war hawk try herds. P40 was liked for it's ease & versatility but it's limitations were apparent to them even back then in 1939. Grumman F8F Bearcat was liked by every nation that got a hold of them as a late carrier based fighter. Still only being introduced in May of 1945 it really was under used in ww2 unfortunately. people try to defend the Grumman F4F Wildcat or the F6F Hellcat but in Europe or with out USA copies of Swedish Bofers 40mm they would have been destroyed in the pacific even. Most of the F6F Hellcat's claimed kills were from bofer's flak be it a direct or indirect assistance kill. The Japanese were not concerned with F6F Hellcat as all they ever mentioned was the shear amount of Furou=flak the USA could put in the air as it was challenge keeping the plane in the air; much less fighting. USA should hank Sweden for their engineering as without them the pacific would have been a lot harder fought!