From Night Fighter by CF Rawnsley and Robert Wright:
P38 vs Spit

"The trouble came to a head after an American test pilot had been on a visit to the aerodrome and had given a snorting display of acrobatics. Rather carried away by national pride, some of the American pilots mad a boast in the Mess that night about the relative merits of the Lightning and the Spitfire. It was a foolish thing to do. The Lightning was a fine aircraft and it was doing a first-class job of work, but it could scarcely be expected to out-turn a single-engined interceptor like the Spitfire. But the challenge had been made.

"The next morning, the entire staff of the station was out watching the two aircraft as they took off and climbed into position. Cautiously they circled for a while; and then they turned in and rushed at each other. As we expected, within a few seconds the Spitfire was sitting firmly on the tail of the Lightning. The American pilot put on a magnificant show and did everything but turn his aircraft inside out; but nothing he could do could shake off the tenacious Spitfire. Finally, the twin-engined Lightning broke off the match and came spiralling in to land. On the approach, the American pilot feathered one of his propellers and came in on one engine, as if to say to the pilot of the Spitfire: "There's something you can't do!"

"But the British pilot was not to be outdone, As he continued his circuit around the aerodrome he rolled over on to his back and flicked his wheels out into the landing position. Still upside down he turned to make his final approach to land. At the last moment he neatly rolled back into the normal position just in time to make a faultless touch-down. Harmony and a blissfull silence was restored to the Mess."

 

 

no comment

 

 

I've mentioned the poor gasoline, the tropical flying conditions that were MURDER on the Merlin (the Americans were to experience the same engine problems with the Merlin equipped P-51.) etc.

 

So when someone claims a single aerobatic display settles an issue? BS. All factors must be considered.

 

cont:

ook at it another way.
 
The Brewster Buffalo- a horrible plane in most operation areas, was an outstanding winter weather fighter in the hands of dedicated pilots who knew how to exploit its weird cold weather advantages against the Russians.
 
The Finns loved those planes. To this day I cannot really explain how they managed to turn that flying turkey into a golden eagle.
 
Yet they did in combat against Russian aircraft that should have been able to eat the Buffalo alive.
 
One reason I suspect is that the Buffalo had an enormous altitude advantage and a far superior Wright Cyclone  engine to the Klimovp-equipped Polikarpovs and LaGGs the Russians flew, but my Finnish is non-existent, so I don't have first hand sources to show me if my guess is accurate.
 



"During the late winter of 1944 occurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."
 
It's called a corner stall, a trick that allows a pilot in a high-powered plane to high or low yoyo an underpowered opponent and cut inside his committed turn. You don't try to TURN with an opponent who can do that routinely. That is how Lightnings killed Zeros.
 
"Correct name = Neel Kearby. A very likeable guy. Commanded newly formed
348FG in July 1943, equipped with P-47s based at Dobodura. Parked at
northeast side of the field just east of "Warhawk Row" where the P-40s of
49FG were parked. Nobody at 49FG had seen P-47s before and were astounded
by these huge machines. Tails were painted white so they would not be
mistaken for Zeros and Oscars by 49FG boys. Some rear echelon guy thought
that up because no way could anyone mistake a beautiful Oscar or Zero for
the Republic beast. 49FG 9FS P-38 crew chiefs wandered over to look at
the P-47s and were struck dumb by the vast complexity of their elaborate
turbocharged engine plumbing. Everybody was awestruck by P-47's
firepower--eight .50s with 425 rpg. Lots of nails. 348FG took over
standing patrols of the Oro Bay area, freeing P-40s for tactical missions
over Salamaua and Lae.
 
On Aug. 11, 348FG P-47s patroling Oro Bay were mistaken for Japanese
planes by 49FG 9FS P-38 pilots (so they said; hard to believe). They
bounced them and scattered them six ways from Sunday, while howls of glee
and malevolent laughter were heard over the radio. A series of individual
dogfights broke out between the P-47s and P-38s (nobody exchanged a shot).
End result was that the P-47s couldn't get on the tail of a single P-38
and the P-38s could not be shaken off by the P-47s. Dogfight began at
20,000 ft and went down to wave-top height. An example of the rough fun
of fighter pilots. Capt. Johnson of 9FS gave Maj. Kearby two bottles of
gin after landing to calm him down. He was hot and wanted to punch
somebody out, but a few shots of gin mellowed him out. He finally allowed
as how he was glad "the God-****ed Japs aren't flying P-38s."
 
Note earlier what I said about horses and cowboys? If you know your plane better than the adversary knows his, you will exploit your strengths against his weakness.  
 
B.

The spit wasnt that bad against the Zero and by all account above 250knts was surperior in everthing it certainly did exceptionally well against the IJA, whilst Darwin is often quoted I remember reading that the majority of the losses were down to pilots chasing the raiders beyond the fuel reserves.

 

I dont remember reading anything about fuel, there was a big problem in the grease used in the constant speed units cause engine failures due to ovespeeding is this what you meant? 

 

certainly the late model Seafires did well and IIRC have the best kill/loss rate of any aircraft in the PTO

if you actually look at engine issues in the PTO the P51 does look bad with many losses due to engine failure, however if you add RTB's for p38s due to engine failure to its losses due to engine failure you find the story is different, overall the alison suffered a greater percentage of failures but fortunately for the P38 jockies they had a spare.

 

A mkV spit could and did fight the Zero once tactics had been sorted

 

 

The Spit failed in Burma, too.

 

Two specific cases can make a general rule with regards to the Japanese. The P-40 which was an inferior plane (on paper) to the Spit did better in both New Guinea and Guadalcanal.

 

And again about the Allison, you are wrong. The fault was not the engine. It was the training. The pilots ran their fuel mix wrong. When Charles Lindburgh went out to the Pacific to teach them how to lean their fuel, the burnouts in the Allisons stopped. They never solved the problem with the Merlin in tropical conditions. That had something to do with the carburetor.  

Maybe fuel injection should have been the way to go for the tropicalized Merlin? Certainly the radials didn't have the problem.

 

B.

 

 

 

I beg to differ, the spit quickly gained air superioity and never lost it so I dont see how you can say it failed

 

Two specific cases can make a general rule with regards to the Japanese. The P-40 which was an inferior plane (on paper) to the Spit did better in both New Guinea and Guadalcanal.

 

no it didnt the p40 was vastgly inferior to the Spit in every area except low speed low altitude turns which was exactly the sweet spot of the Zero and certainly wasnt the the way the p40 had success against the Zero

 

 And again about the Allison, you are wrong. The fault was not the engine. It was the training. The pilots ran their fuel mix wrong.

WHilst the fuel mix was wrong the problems with the alison continued till the end of the war, Merlins were used with great success in Hurricanes, Spits and seafires , P40s and P51s (as well as Mossies and later Hornets)

 

 

When Charles Lindburgh went out to the Pacific to teach them how to lean their fuel, the burnouts in the Allisons stopped.

No they didnt the RTB though engine failures remained high thoughout the war

 

They never solved the problem with the Merlin in tropical conditions. That had something to do with the carburetor. 

Maybe fuel injection should have been the way to go for the tropicalized Merlin? Certainly the radials didn't have the problem.

what problems?  other than the prop problems and overheating due to the spit being designed for cold european skys I have not read of any and certainly every RAAF sites seem to agree that the MkV and VIII they got did stirling service (note that they didnt get the MkIX or later so basically they were using 1941 aircraft)

 

fuel injection is not the answer as the carb cooled the charge something Fuel injection didnt, RR was well aware of fuel injection but it was a technical decision to go with carbs.

 

You keep mentions fuel problems but what fuel problems? only issues I can find with fuel is lack of supplies of high octane fuel

what problems?  other than the prop problems and overheating due to the spit being designed for cold european skys I have not read of any and certainly every RAAF sites seem to agree that the MkV and VIII they got did stirling service (note that they didnt get the MkIX or later so basically they were using 1941 aircraft)

 

Filters, humidity problem, wrong carburetor choke, SALT, wrong steels. Just because you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do some homework in the Australian and British unit history archives. You'll find the American stuff on a site called Hyperwar.   

 

fuel injection is not the answer as the carb cooled the charge something Fuel injection didnt, RR was well aware of fuel injection but it was a technical decision to go with carbs.

 

Wrong decision. Automated power-eggs (Kurt Tank invention for the FW 190) work better through the aspiration chain when you can meter the fuel aerosol mix at the cylinder! USN went for it IMMEDIATELY when they discovered the advantages after they tested a captured FW-190.  

 

You keep mentions fuel problems but what fuel problems? only issues I can find with fuel is lack of supplies of high octane fuel.

 

BINGO! Wrong fuel! Got it in one.