Yes, the Spit's most intense combat was early in the war, because the air war moved outside it's range by the end of '42. I've commented before on the very bad tactical training and doctrine in the RAF in BoB period. But much of the early action by the '38s in ETO was against heavy odds. Also, you refer to the Japanese fighters as 'paper kites'. I seem to recall that the first time that experienced, RAF trained pilots in Mk V Spitfires met Zeroes, it was the Spits that were treated as 'paper kites'. And this after Joe Foss of the USMC (over 20 kills at the time) had warned them about exactly what to expect fighting Zeroes.

The two main statements/questions below need little explanation; >>>well could the possiblity of the fact that the spit main combat period of a/a was 1939 - 41 a period of very high combat against the luftwaffe at its peak fought mainly with pilots with the minimum of training might have something to do with this? what were the k/l ratios of the p38 during this period? oh thats right the p38 wasnt operational was it! by the time the p38 saw action the whole air war had changed, the germans were on the back foot, a large proportion of the pilots in the air were poorly trained, they were fighting a defensive war against the odds a perfect situation for the p38 to rack up kills but did it? no it performed so badly it was withdrawn.<<< That the p-38 was used in the ETO right up to the end of the war. Not counting the PTO kills, the P-38 destroyed more german planes than the Entire British Air force durring the course of the war! Note that I am only talking about German planes, not Japanise which ran the score up so massivly! As a second concideration, durring the time that the P-38 was in service, the British AF downed very few german planes. That the P-38 did down very many is the point! >>>by the way in answer to an earlier comment on the merlin v alisons you asked why do the air racers used alsion con rods in the merlins! now i will agree that this is because the alison con rods were stronger however why use them in merlins INSTEAD of using alisons? if the alisons were a better engine? and its certainly not down to orginality as few of the planes have orginal engines and most have engines that werent even considered for that craft. <<< 1. If the cruising speed of the Spit is 188MPH IAS @ 20K' and the P-38 is, according to your own figures, 248MPH IAS @ 20K', Which plane is faster? 2. Given the reallitive tank sizes, if the P-38 is flown at 44" Hg and 274MPH IAS, @ 20K', how much farther will it's 1/3RD reduced range carry it than a Spitfire at ANY THOTTLE SETTING? Hint it is more than 50% farther than any range the Spit can fly to! 3. The reason that most Mustangs do not switch engines is because of weight and ballance considerations. The Mustang is already tail heavy and installing a lighter motor would make things impossably bad. The fastest Mustange of the war had an Allison engine in it. The late war Allison also made more power than the Merlin or Griffon engines of the time. 4. The defect that caused all of the Allison's problems was back fires into the inlet manifolds. This was cured by Edgar Schmued of NAA by fitting the same backfire screens from the merlin into the allison engines of the P-82 test plane. This was exaserbated by GM because they did not want to be in the Recip engine buisness. 5. If you check the pilot's manuals from the time, you will find that the late model Allison made more power with less boost than the Merlin or Grifon of the time. 2,300HP @ 90" to 2,218HP @ 105"! Also that American made Merlins made much more power than their RR counterparts. ( 2,218HP to 2,050HP Grifons and 1,790HP Merlins. It was not untill substantialy after the war that RR Merlin and Griffon engines made competitive power. 2,050HP and 2,080HP in the Merlin engined Hornit and 2,350HP in the last half dozzen Spits to roll off the line.) 6. The only man to get RELIABLE RACE LEVEL POWER FROM ANY of the LC V-12s was a Merlin builder. That is why they used Merlins. Had he been an Allison man, they never would have herd of them again. Just my oppinion?

Ha ha ha comedy hour or what...... the P38 shot down more aircraft in the ETO than the british airforce? what planet are you on

1. If the cruising speed of the Spit is 188MPH IAS @ 20K' and the P-38 is, according to your own figures, 248MPH IAS @ 20K', Which plane is faster? No not according to my own figures, those are figures you've made up. Economical cruise for a P-38 at 20,000 feet was 248 mph TAS. The MkXIV Spitfire cruised most economically at 260 mph TAS at 20,000 feet according to the chart, although the manual actually specifies on the previous page maximum range is achieved at about 270-285 mph TAS. So at worst the economical cruise at 20,000 feet the spit XIV is only 12 mph faster than the P-38L. 2. Given the reallitive tank sizes, if the P-38 is flown at 44" Hg and 274MPH IAS, @ 20K', how much farther will it's 1/3RD reduced range carry it than a Spitfire at ANY THOTTLE SETTING? Hint it is more than 50% farther than any range the Spit can fly to! Actually your wrong. A P-38 flying at what you suggested only has a range of 400-450 miles. A MkXIV could fly to 450 miles. However, the point I was making was that a XIV could afford to cruise at a higher speed without the massive effect on range that is had on a P-38. A P-38 flying escort over Germany is not going to be able to fly as fast as a MkXIV can flying over the Channel and France.

The figures you quote do not agree with the pilots manuals I've seen. As to Max range, every one I've ever seen quotes 210-220 MPH for max range. At 260MPH the range is around 250-320 miles. (Depending on model.) The P-38 can cruise at 274 for more miles than a Spit can fly at any speed! Piriod! No mater what speed the Spitfire uses continiously, the P-38 can out range it substantialy! No spit ever escorted bombers to germany from england. If you read the book "Late mark Spitfire aces" and then measure the distances from the launching fields to the targets mentioned, you will not find a single instance of a radius of action near 200 miles. I recomend the web site "INVERSE COMPUTATION" to find the distances by great circle route. The last bombing mission over Berlin on 8 April was escorted by P-38s. The chart you site shows 188 on the top line at -4PSI and 1800 RPM. When I find my Jepsen, I'll calculate the TAS for you. But you are the only person on the planet who thinks the Spit is faster in cruise than the P-38.

I've already done the the IAS-TAS conversions those are the numbers on my previous post, I left out the IAS numbers as you have a bad habit of taking those and comparing then to TAS as if they were the same thing. The pages I've used also use a 210-220 mph for economical cruising of a MkXIV, but that is IAS. I'll let you do the conversions to TAS but I'll bet you top dollar that the MkXIV comes out faster than the Lightnings 178 mph IAS at 20,000 feet. You haven't been able to refute anything I've posted on the cruise speeds of the MkXIV and the lightning. Present a real argument and stop talking in circles and putting forth red herrings.

Again you have missed the point entirely! >>The pages I've used also use a 210-220 mph for economical cruising of a MkXIV, but that is IAS. I'll let you do the conversions to TAS but I'll bet you top dollar that the MkXIV comes out faster than the Lightnings 178 mph IAS at 20,000 feet.<< The Spitfire CAN NOT REACH IT'S PLACARD RANGE AT ANY SPEED OVER 190MPH IAS!!! Piriod! That econo cruise you site is listed as the minimum within range of enimy aircraft has nothing to do with anything. According to my coppy of the pilots manual, the 188MPH cruise uses >25 galons per hour in the Merlin equiped and >36 GPH in the Griffon engined aircraft. The 210~220MPH IAS cruise you site uses 31-34GPH in the early Spits and 48GPH in the later planes with the Griffon engines. You can fudge the numbers all you want, but you can not show how those figures will let it reach placard range. In addition radius of action is limmeted to about 40% of range to leave something for go rounds and other unforseen needs, to mention nothing for combat. The P-38 has enough fule on board that it can run at METO or 260 to 310MPH IAS, depending on altitude and modle, for over three hours!!! That meens that it is faster than the Spitfire over any meeningfull distance by a vary substantial margine. It also means that it can fly that speed for longer range than the typical Spitfire can go any distance! In real terms, that means that the P-38 was faster in an operational sence than the placard numbers would lead you to belive. Please go back an read all of the previous posts on this thread.

Using data from the operating data I have provided: The MkXIV had 111 gallons of usable fuel, I think some had 120 but I'll use 111. Climbing to 20,000 feet 23 gallons of fuel is used (with taxi and reserve) and 27 miles are covered, that leaves 88 gallons of fuel in the tanks. Cruising at 200 mph IAS, 274 mph TAS, it gets 5.25 AMPG. So thats another 462 miles range. That for a total of 489 miles. That's a little bit more than placard range I believe. Using your numbers: Seeing as how you haven't specified how much fuel is used and what distance is covered in the climb to 20,000 I'll use the same as what I used previously, 23 gallons and 27 miles. That leaves 88 gallons of fuel again, I'll use the lower figure of 210 mph IAS you provided. That gives me 288 mph TAS at 20,000 feet. With 88 gallons of fuel at 48 GPH you get an endurance at cruise of 1.83 hours, or an hour and 50 minutes. 288 mph TAS for 1.83 hours results in 528 miles and 555 miles when you add the distance covered in climb. Once again greater than placard range. In fact you could add an extra 17.5 gallons reserve and still reach placard range. On to other points: There is no denying that the P-38 has a vastly superior range. However, it is not going to result in a consistantly higher cruising speed than a MkXIV spitfire. A MkXIV is not going to used in the long range escort role because it is not an escort fighter like the P-38. Hence a P-38 is going to have to operate at the extent of it's range more often than not. Consequently it will be cruising at it's most economic speed like most other fighters. However, a P-38 pays a larger price in range for cruising at high speed. High speed cruise, particularly at maximum continuous power reduces the normal operational capabilities by a larger amount than what it does in the MkXIV. A MkXIV will be able to fly a much larger proportion of it's normal mission operating at higher speed than a P-38 would, in addition to it's normal higher cruise speed.

I dispute your performance figures specificaly the IAS/TAS MPH and MPG at throtle setting to get 200IAS at 20K' and request that you post the book and page they came from. You also seem to have left out the 30 Minutes reserve required by regulations? Using your own figures, which I still dispute, it takes 26 gallons to meet that reserve and reduces the range by 137 miles. Finnaly, the placard range was 500 Miles acording to every book I've seen? That leaves your solution more than a few miles short. >>The MkXIV had 111 gallons of usable fuel, I think some had 120 but I'll use 111. Climbing to 20,000 feet 23 gallons of fuel is used (with taxi and reserve) and 27 miles are covered, that leaves 88 gallons of fuel in the tanks.<< From which page of what book? My manual shows 50GPH in the Merlin engined plane at that speed, where are those figures from? By the way more than a few Mk-XIVs only had 85 gallons in the tanks and it was not all usable. >>Cruising at 200 mph IAS, 274 mph TAS, it gets 5.25 AMPG. So thats another 462 miles range. << Please link to page that has a chart to convert IAS to TAS at altitude! >>That for a total of 489 miles. That's a little bit more than placard range I believe.<< Wrong again! Placard range was 500 Miles, IIRC! >>That leaves 88 gallons of fuel again, I'll use the lower figure of 210 mph IAS you provided. That gives me 288 mph TAS at 20,000 feet. With 88 gallons of fuel at 48 GPH you get an endurance at cruise of 1.83 hours, or an hour and 50 minutes. 288 mph TAS for 1.83 hours results in 528 miles and 555 miles when you add the distance covered in climb. << But the Fuel flow was for 10,000' not 20,000'! IIRC! Again page and title of book with figures! I will find my coppy of the pilots manual soon, it can't stay lost forever. >>On to other points: There is no denying that the P-38 has a vastly superior range. However, it is not going to result in a consistantly higher cruising speed than a MkXIV spitfire.<< Why NOT? If you add drop tanks to the Spit it still does not have as much gas on board per engine as the P-38 without those drop tanks. And the Griffon is much thirstier than the Allison, to boot! >>A MkXIV is not going to used in the long range escort role because it is not an escort fighter like the P-38. Hence a P-38 is going to have to operate at the extent of it's range more often than not. Consequently it will be cruising at it's most economic speed like most other fighters.<< This is faulty reasoning on your part. The P-38 only goes on fighter escort missions when the bombers go. They fly far fewer missions because of weather and other causes than fighter planes do. In addition, the P-38 was much more reliable than the Mk-XIV Spitfire, durring the same calender piriod. On the other days when it was used as a pure fighter, the P-38 made the same fighter sweeps the Spiut was called on to perform. Durring those missions the P-38 killed more planes than the Spitfire did on the same mission! In fact so many more kills that it made up for the BoB scores too! >> However, a P-38 pays a larger price in range for cruising at high speed. << Why would you say this? The P-38's engines were turbo-charged and gave significantly better fuel ecconomy than the merely supercharged Griffon in the Spitfire. This differance was more exagerated the higher the two planes climbed as the turbo got more efficiant and the griffon lost power. In addition the P-38 was a cleaner plane with a higher aspect ratio and better CD. >>High speed cruise, particularly at maximum continuous power reduces the normal operational capabilities by a larger amount than what it does in the MkXIV.<< This is clearly not true at all! The Allison gave better fuel ecconomy at any throttle setting than either the Merlin or Griffon. At 75% throttle and 25,000' the Allison used about the same amount of gas per hour as the griffon did at 65%! Since the P-38 had more than twice as much usable gas on board, it could fly much farther than the Spitfire even if the Spit ran at it's most ecconomical throttle setting! -2 Lbs boost! >> A MkXIV will be able to fly a much larger proportion of it's normal mission operating at higher speed than a P-38 would,<< This is simply not true! If it was required to go more than 100 miles from base, the P-38 was much faster than any Spitfire! piriod! >> in addition to it's normal higher cruise speed. << This is clearly faulty logic! That it flies any portion of its range at any speed higher than the P-38 is irrealivant! That range is still clearly much less than the p-38 could go. That it had to use 75% throttle to exceed the cruise speed of the P-38 is not important. At that setting the Spit uses much more than 100GPH. That a P-38 could go over 500 miles at 75% throttle makes the question moot because the Spitfire could not typicaly do that distance without drop tanks in a combat zone. With the tanks on, the Spit is much sl

These are the charts I used for my calculations http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_spit14_notes_24.jpg http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_spit14_notes_25.jpg I used my Dalton E-6B to do my IAS to TAS conversion, but this website gives the same results (a few miles faster, but for all intents and purposes the same) http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html Some more good reading on range and endurance, specifically 460 miles for range http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html You didn't specify that the fuel consumption rates you provided were for an alitude of 10,000 feet, I assumed they were for 20,000. However, the data I provided was for 20,000 feet, so those calculations are still valid. If you look at this chart; http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38FOIC.gif and compare it to the second link from the top of the page, you'll notice that at maximum continuous power the range of the MkXIV is only reduced by 20% from the range at most economic cruise compared to the 62% reduction for the P-38L. The most economical cruising speed for the MkXIV spit is also much higher than the most economical cruising speed for any lightning, period. I have provided all the evidence to back up my argument. It is time that you do the same for your argument.