So who was first - Mustang or Lightning?

[Liberator]

So im seeing online today comments that P-51 Mustang was NOT the first US fighter over Berlin but P-38 Lightnings were.

So why did Goering sort of claim once he saw Mustangs the war would be doomed? Why was P-38 not seen as a threat to Goering?

[Jerry O'Neill]

I believe it had more to do with quantity. P-38's may have been the first US fighter, but I think the escorting of heavy bombers by fighters later in the war was what might have prompted fatso to say that.

[old iron]

Not to mention that Mustangs were much more of a threat to attacking Focke-Wulfs!

[SaxMan]

While Goering was generally a buffoon, he was a fighter pilot and he did know the difference in capabilities of single-engine fighters versus twin-engine fighters, as the Luftwaffe learned this lesson the hard way during the Battle of Britain. The Me-110 were just too big to mix it up with Spitfires and Hurricanes. Likewise, the Luftwaffe was hindered because the Me-109E, while certainly capable, had very limited range as an offensive fighter and the bomber crews suffered accordingly.

When he saw the Americans had developed a single engine fighter that had the range to go all the way to Berlin, he realized that that the United States would now have a qualitative advantage over his fighters. This was in addition to the the quantitative advantage that America's factories were churning out.

[k5083]

Actually, he likely never said "Mustangs" as quoted. He may have just said "fighters," or he may never have said anything of the kind.

We've discussed it here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=46813&start=0

Saxman's elaborate explanation for why Goering said something he probably never said is very imaginative, but actually, Goering was quite a fan of 2-engined fighters, and with his support of aircraft such as the Do 335 and Ta 154 late in the war, it would not appear that he ever gave up on the zerstorer concept. And, had the Mustang not been handy, likely the P-38 would have been given a second chance to overcome its teething troubles and done the job quite nicely.

August

[Mark Allen M]

"When he saw the Americans had developed a single engine fighter that had the range to go all the way to Berlin". He more than likely said this:

"Ihmettelen, jos ne palvelevat danishes klo Spandau"

[shrike]

"When he saw the Americans had developed a single engine fighter that had the range to go all the way to Berlin". He more than likely said this:

"Ihmettelen, jos ne palvelevat danishes klo Spandau"

Goering hat Finnisch gesprochen?

[Invader26]

Merlin powered P-38's is what was needed.....

The Luftwaffe needed heavy fighters [as well as highly refined fighters like the FW190 and derivatives/Me262/Me163 etc]as a direct counter to the bombers not to mix it in dog fights. The bigger aircraft carried heavy weapons and had better endurance day and night...

The Mosquito for example was not a dog fighter either...

[The Inspector]

Saturday my new issue of AVIATION HISTORY (May 2014 issue) arrived and Robert Dorr has a brilliant article on just why the P-38 was unloved in the ETO and early on considered as 'cold meat' by the Luftwaffe. A lot of it had to do with extremly minimalist training in type for pilots before being sent to a squadron where it was 'learn on the job', the complexity of the switches and procedures, plus inconvienient locations of switches and controls to go from 'stoogin' along' to 'ready to fight'-complexities in procedures for adding or retarding power, frozen turbo controls, almost total lack of any sort of cockpit heating resulting in fumbling around where you can't see what you're reaching for while wearing thick gloves with cold numbed hands.
The P-51 was much better thoughtout as far as switchery and power /prop control as well as switching form 'stoogin' along' to 'ready to fight' taking seconds, not minutes as with the P-38.
The article is very well worth finding and keeping in your 'pile o facts'

[Dave Homewood]

Saturday my new issue of AVIATION HISTORY (May 2014 issue) arrived

Wow, a history magazine that arrives two months before the publication date? Talk about time travel. If they have such a machine that can send the magazines back in time they must be great on getting the history within accurate.

[The Inspector]

Saturday my new issue of AVIATION HISTORY (May 2014 issue) arrived

Wow, a history magazine that arrives two months before the publication date? Talk about time travel. If they have such a machine that can send the magazines back in time they must be great on getting the history within accurate.

That's pretty much how the periodicals publishing racket works around this neck of the woods.

[Dave Homewood]

Yeah, I have always found it very odd how the foreign magazines do that. There never seems to be any reason for it.

[Jack Cook]

my new issue of AVIATION HISTORY (May 2014 issue) arrived and Robert Dorr has a brilliant article on just why the P-38 was unloved in the ETO

The basis of this article was from a copy of a letter I sent to Bob Dorr. It was from Lt Col Hal Rau CO of the 20th FG to the CG of 8th Fighter Command and highlighted Col Rau's viewsd of flying the P-38 in combat. Here is the letter in full. I think Col Rau should get credit has author................


20th Fighter Group Headquarters APO 637 U.S. Army
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VIII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are not intended in anyway to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average’, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-fivehours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavyload). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several thingswrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperaturewith subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. Thelogical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/Vand tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles andthen proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devisedto overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary".Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a singlelever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that incombat.

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been incombat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a"bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} areall in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and ColonelCass Hough are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps, Commanding

The letter was printed in full along with a beautiful photo of Col Rau by his P-38J in the recent Flight Journal P-38 Special Edition

[AG pilot]

The letter by Rau is very interesting.

[k5083]

Very interesting indeed. I haven't seen the magazine, but it's easy to imagine someone getting a document like that and saying Hey, I can pad this out with a little commentary and a few often-seen photos and have me an article, while really adding not much of value to the original document.

On the other hand, it would be a useful original contribution to take something like this, and then trace whether and how these issues were later addressed. And since the P-38 is one of those airplanes that is well known for being a flop in one combat environment but a success in another, how did these issues and the attempts to resolve them map onto the plane's mixed combat career?

August