From the same source. He was posted to command 257 squadron flying Hurricane M1 in September 1940. "Tuck intensively drilled 257 Squadron's pilots for three days, from September 12 to 14, trying to bring the squadron to battle readiness. He first taught them to fly in loose pairs. Then he sent up pairs of Hurricanes on mock patrols, diving on them from out of the sun. He had the squadron engage in mock dogfights. In the evenings, using German aircraft models, Tuck lectured his pilots about the blind spots on German planes and demonstrated attacks."

Appearantly his efforts didn't become general practice since what I described was reported by USAAF ftr. pilots as being RAF standard in early '43. Two hundred feet seperation is certainly very much better, although still pretty close by then-current German standards.

>>the finger four formation was the standard raf fromation from 41, no other formation flying was taught. the finger four is regarded as the optimum formation as it is a lead/wingman lead element with a lead/wingman support and is the standard formation even today.<< Not exactly, we have been using the "Loose Duce" for decades now.

From: Link: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38.html Various US tests of the P38J Quote 1: Feb 1944 "The P-38J is designed as a high altitude fighter interceptor. This airplane has a fast rate of climb and performs well at high altitude, however, caution must be used in acrobatics and diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds. These airspeed limitations are low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure and are definitely objectionable and hazardous from a combat viewpoint." Quote 2: October 1943 "Results of flight tests on two P-38J airplanes at Wright indicate that these airplanes are unsatisfactory for tactical use above 20,000 ft". Reliability (1) In the Oct 43 tests they found the intercoolers leaked badly. (2) In tests on a randomly selected production machine in Feb 44 both (yes both) engines failed and had to be replaced ... in 30 hours of flying! (3) Performance reduced with the replaced engines. Quote 3: tail buffeting Feb 44 "This airplane has a fast rate of climb and performs well at high altitude, however, caution must be used in acrobatics and diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds. These airspeed limitations are low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure and are definitely objectionable and hazardous from a combat viewpoint. " Quote 4: tail buffeting Feb 44 "The general operation of the airplane and all controls at high altitudes and low temperatures is satisfactory, however, tail buffeting is experienced even at maximum speeds in level flight at altitudes over 30000 feet. Although the buffeting causes an uneasy feeling, controls remain effective, and it is not dangerous if the dive speed limits are not exceeded. " Comments on the performance tests: They picked the best figures out of the tests to quote. Overall comment No wonder they replaced it with the P51 as fast as they could.

Guys, fromn my earlier pots you know I dont have a thing for/against any particular plane/country... I'm an analyst. But I can't miss this, given some people's "thing": (1) Against Spitfires (2) Against anything British (3) Pro P38 (4) So-so against Mustangs (p38s could have done everything 'stangs did ... sure) (5) Forgetting the contribution of P47s, Mossies, Typhoons, Tempests, P40s, Hurricanes, etc. (6) Forgetting that we were allies and we (usually, unfortunately not always) worked together. Everyone is human... even me .. sometimes.

Hard to respond without knowing the actual sources as nature of tests referred to, but: Quote 1 clearly refers to early 'J' without dive recovery flaps. Quote 2 if reasons are the note below, (reliability) I would like to know the cercustances of the double failure, as the a/c proved very reliable in worldwide operation. The reason it was the preferred a/c for long range over water ops. in the Pacific. Leaking was a serious problem with the older leading edge intercoolers of the pre J models, but I had not hear that the core cooler of the J gave any trouble. Quote 3 see response to quote 1 Quote 4 see response to quote 1 Overall comment. The DIDN'T replace it 'as fast as they could' or at all, unless you're referring only to the 8thAF. The P38s from the 8th went to the 9th AF and continued in service. In fact production of the P38 continuted to the end of the war, and the a/c remained in service until 1949. Final replacement with the F51 was due to the fact that the Mustang was cheaper to operate and the (then new) USAF was desperate for money to buy jets. This proved a mistake as the combat use of the F51 afterwards was almost totally in the ground support role, for which either the P47 or P38 was much better suited.

Add to the list of some people's 'thing' The myopic belief that WW2 began and ended in Norther Europe and no other front was of importance or interest. On number 5 I agree totally. I have seen the P40 referred to as 'crap' by Spitfire proponants with some regularity, and I was the one who pointed out that the Hurricane had a much better rep of ruggedness and as a shooting platform than the Spitfire. Personally, I remain a proponant of the Thunderbolt, but recognize that it didn't have enough range to do the full escort job without something with longer legs. That 'something' was the P38 until the '51 arrived, but by then the average quality of Luft pilots had been seriously reduced.

(1) Look at the dates and sources - check them yourself, I did give the web link, check it out. (2) No it wasn't, reliability particularly at high altitude and high speed was always a problem. (3) The basic Allison engine was very (actually very) reliable... look at the P51As.. went on until late 44, only with the poor turbo design and application in the P38 was there an issue. (4) The P38 escorts were replaced as soon as possible, the P38s in the ETO were relegated to ground attack. (5) Agree about the P47 (one of the greats ... possibly top of the second rank and one of my favourites). (6) The P38 found its niche as a fighter plane in the PTO against poor opposition and under 20,000ft, in warm weather, where it did quite well.... God help the ground crews though .. they must have prayed for a Corsair to service.

Couldn't agree more. Beufighters, P40s, Catalinas, Sunderlands, Typhoons, etc, heck add Wellingtons & B26s. All made a terrific contributions, though not always for the tasks they were originally designed for. We (including me) can get a bit obsessed about certain planes, but there were many, not so well known that made incredable contributions. Example: B24s, one of the most important planes of the war (forget B17s & Lancasters). Until escort carriers got up and running they were possibly one of the most critical elements of the Battle of the Atlantic (for those who don't know, almost certainly the most important battle of the whole WW2).

To MustangFlyer: You should read your own source more carefully. The ducting leak problems were with an a/c delivered in July '43. Clearly this is a matter of quality control in the very early production after the changes. The report on the P-38J-15 had no such complaints. These were tests that included the deliberate abuse of the engines to see how far they could be pushed. Engine failures in such tests are common. Note that the authors of the report didn't show any sign of being surprised by them. Note the curve for roll rate with power boosted control. It shows a top roll rate for the P38 of at least 200 deg./sec. The highest rate I've seen listed for original wing (unclipped) Spitfires (from Spitfire sites) is 140 deg./sec. The time to climb numbers listed are somewhat higher than others that I've seen. If these are correct (20K in 5.68 min., 23.4K in 6.49 min.) would be at least as fast as a Spitfire IX. I've covered the matter of the 8th AF transfer of P38s to the 9th AF earlier. The decision was made before the Js were available and based on performance of the Gs and Hs. I continue to point out that the "poor opposition" in the PTO was capable of maintaining a 3 to 1 K/L ratio against Spitfire Vs with experienced pilots from the ETO and MTO while taking a beating from early (F and G) Lightnings. I've also mentioned before that I find your contempt for everything outside the front bordering the North Sea something of a cop-out. By the end of '42, the Spitfire had become almost irrelevent in a strategic sense. At that time the P38 (with all the problems of the early models) was by far the most valuable and useful fighter available to the Allies. It still comes back to the range problem. Performance doesn't matter if you can't get to the fight. In the PTO, MTO, and even North Europe by late '42, the Spitfires could only fight if the enemy came to them. The Lightnings could take the fight to the enemy in a way that the Spitfire couldn't.