For those who just like them

[Norforce]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NegfVnyfs0Q[/youtube]


Allso this sorry about the sound they should have had Scott

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7B0WWc4 ... re=related[/youtube]

[Killratio]

Nice mate!!

[cflord]

Norforce

Thanks for the outstanding P-38 videos. You inspired me to break out my FSD P-38 (with Accu-Feel) and take a little flight. My dad knew Bong and talks about him all the time.

Keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down!

Ret SMSgt Cliff Lord - C-130 Flight Engineer

[Hoogs]

Here's to the best looking warbird Ever!
An A2A P-38 would empty my wallet, leave my wife lonely, and cause me to geek out to the extreme!

[MAGGIEMAE]

It is ironic that it was a P-38 that Jeff lost his life in.

[phillik747]

Reminds me of my Grandpa. He worked at Lockheed and designed most of the coolant system in the P-38. The radiator ducts are his design.

I've never seen on in flight, maybe one day.

Kyle

[trucker17]

Reminds me of my Grandpa. He worked at Lockheed and designed most of the coolant system in the P-38. The radiator ducts are his design.

I've never seen on in flight, maybe one day.

Kyle

Awsome aircraft to see in the air....Even more impresive from the cockpit....
If i am not mistaken...The closest one to your location is Glacier Girl....I beleave she is located in Kentucky or Tennessee....
If you remember the P-38 they pulled up out the the ice...This is her, fully restored to flying condition.
Most air museums that hold airshows will usually have one their....
Check with your local air museum, to see when the show will be, They even may be able to tell you when a P-38 will be flown, or expected to arive at their airport or show.

[greasysidedown]

"Tangerine" is in the museum at Tillamook, OR, if you're ever up there.

I think Jeff Ethell crashed near Tillamook.

[bullfox]

I have never been able find out why the P-38 was not used over Germany in WWII. Can anyone out there offer an explanation?

[greasysidedown]

They were used briefly, but I believe they had engine issues in the northern European winters. They were more successful in the Mediterranean theater.

[McDonnell-Douglas]

I am no expert on the P-38 but I believe it did not suit European conditions very well, more so for what the USAAF wanted of it; a fighter.

Even though it had more success in the engine department in the Mediterranean and Pacific than Northwest Europe its combat record in both NW Europe and the Mediterranean was poor, especially in comparison to its record in the Pacific. The P-38 was a long range fighter that traded range, firepower and speed for manoeuvrability. This worked well in the Pacific Theatre where its superior speed, climb rate and fire-power decimated Japanese aircraft primarily utilising energy tactics In the European Theatre its only advantages would be firepower (arguably) and range, a relatively comparable to the Me110 in the BOB. Had the Japanese developed better aircraft in the required numbers perhaps the P-38 would have not done so well, or further developed, or the USAAF abandoned bombing of Japan, or etc. (You can't second guess history only provide alternatives - war is a game of opportunity cost) Nevertheless the P-38 was developed with this knowledge in mind so it did its job, and very well and that job was as a long range fighter in the Pacific Theatre - to which it was excellently suited

Just as an expansion and bringing into play my point about war as a game of opportunity cost I feel the P-38 would have been better utilised as a fighter bomber and Schnellbomber similar to the De Mosquito Furthermore these aircraft should have been utilised as the backbone of 'Strategic' bombing in Europe I love the big strategic bombers as aircraft like the B-17 etc but their usefulness in war could be questioned, perhaps built in the wrong era just like building a dive bomber today especially looking at the success rate of strategic bombing (not bad but not great). Strategic bombing bar nuclear weapons has only become a viable alternative recently with the introduction of PGM's. Modern PGM's are beginning to offer increasingly viable platforms possibly becoming a better alternative but not replace missiles by large though saturation techniques ( HARM cost nearly $1m whilst a SDB costs $40K . The RAF stated the Mosquito as 4.95 times more efficient than the Lancaster post-war. A swarm of such fast low level bombers would have over-saturated defences, delivered ordnance with far more precision than alternate methods, and if you follow the math causing 4.95 times as much destruction/success in strategic bombing minimum (likely much much more) all the while keeping Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe resources tied to fighters and Flak guns (again if not increasing requirements) with enough capital left over for increasing the size/capability of the invasion ground forces and logistics support

These things unfortunately usually get discovered after wars (ironic I know but hindsight is always 20/20) and it does not help when it was a result of bad decisions and political manoeuvring that can not be blamed on hindsight There are many examples of this in modern warfare, historical, present and those yet to come. (The development of LGB's as a result of precision bombing needs in Vietnam for the USAF, the development of the AMRAAM as a result of the AIMVAL/ACEVAL exercises; multi targeting radars were useless if you did not have the ability to use them - this stuns me still today an example of poor foresight and waste of money. The lack of countermeasures against the SA-6 during the Yom Kippur War. The F-35 looks like another strategic mistake etc. I could go on all day with a long list so you will just have to accept this small list as sufficient evidence On a related note the USSR did a bit better in this respect, they listened to their generals and soldiers and their requirements and for some reason despite widespread corruption within the general system corruption, backhanders and poor decision was some sort of taboo where the Soviet Armed Forces were concerned.

Please anyone feel free to correct me on the P-38 or anything else. Knowledge is power. And forgive me for this somewhat half history, half military science/economics lesson

Regards,
Colin

[greasysidedown]

For strategic bombing, PGMs make more sense and no crews are at risk. Missiles are less flexible tactically. The main problem with the F-35 is history repeating and attempting to produce a single all-purpose airframe. It didn't work with the F-4 and the F-111. A really good read on the shenanigans of weapons procurement is the book "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James G. Burton.

[McDonnell-Douglas]

For strategic bombing, PGMs make more sense and no crews are at risk. Missiles are less flexible tactically. The main problem with the F-35 is history repeating and attempting to produce a single all-purpose airframe. It didn't work with the F-4 and the F-111. A really good read on the shenanigans of weapons procurement is the book "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James G. Burton.

I have read a fair chunk of excerpts from 'The Pentagon Wars'. An excellent recommendation @greasysidedown, I still mean to actually purchase it

Totally agree on the F-35 A CAS/Tactical Bomber/Lightweight-Fighter/Carrier Aircraft? It should have been obvious from the start. Whilst Multi-Role capability aircraft have somewhat reduced the need for tactical bombers, CAS is difficult to role into the same airframe let alone a lightweight fighter. An F-22 derivative, or totally new aircraft, would have made a better tactical fighter/bomber, think F-15E, especially if the F-35's stealth is found to be insufficient to get within range of modern SAM's. An improved stealthy F-35 would have done better as a lightweight fighter/bomber with stealth UCAVS for CAS.

PGM's are frankly stunning. Accuracy is hundreds of percent improved over dumb-bombs. The accuracy alone is what has made strategic bombing viable. Otherwise the economic resource can be better spent on ground forces and tactical forces.

Hopefully the world will renounce war soon, and the defence budget can be spent on vintage warbirds

[greasysidedown]

Sadly "The Pentagon Wars" is difficult to find. Copies start at over $100 on Amazon and are worse on Ebay. My local library's copy is no longer available. From what I can see the book was not issued as a paperback.

What's funny is the F-15 was a result of more sensible voices persuading the technology-obsessed to simplify their proposals. The F-16 came about when it was suggested to build a fighter around one of the F-15's engines and keep it light and simple. Now the F-16 has been loaded with so much extra stuff that the original performance is gone.

I realise I take a somewhat cynical view, but as long as there is a food chain, there will be war.

[McDonnell-Douglas]

Hmm. That is a shame I was most looking forward to getting a copy of The Pentagon Wars.

I could talk at great length providing possible reasoning for the F-16's perhaps bloated development into a multi-role aircraft. This same thing may occur with the F-35 and fighters that are perhaps too small for multi-role operations, especially considering the limitations of radar aperture/power, range, payload etc. in smaller aircraft.

Lastly its not cynical but realistic to assume future war. If it was just us guys on this forum there would be no need but unfortunately there are some less than savoury characters and you can not just stand there and allow them to impose their will; that would make you passively complicit.

But I fear I have already hijacked a P-38 thread (shame on me)
Back to the P-38. Interesting Fact - It had a Yoke not a Stick Sounds fun.

Colin