How can ANYONE not listen to everything these men have to say . I was fortunate growing up and having these men/women of the greatest generation being my aunts&uncles . My dad fought in the SoPacific as did his oldest brother flying P38s. It really pisses them off when I say the Corsairs were the best things flying . Thats how I learned to duck so well .
Wow, the 55th tying string between 2 airplanes and coming back with it intact! The plane holding itself in the vertical while the other stalls out! Cutting the right engine and spinning the airplane to defeat the Zero on his tail! Great P-38 stories! Thanks Perry!
Look everyone, this man is the true definition of the term 'Hero' unlike today where often anybody is termed 'a hero' by the media if they expose themselves to even the slightest risk
So often it seems that some of the best pilots are prone to breaking some of the strict military rules. I wonder how many potentially great pilots were turned away on technicalities or broken rules just as Dahl almost was.
The lightning was an excellent low altitude fighter bomber in Europe. Engines had a lot of power at lower altitudes. Almost the opposite in the pacific.
A great account of a brave American pilot (second to none) flying a great Lockeed fighter. The P38 did not do well in the ETO due to the cold weather causing the turbosuperchargers to overboost resulting from damage to the early design intake manifolds and subsequent destruction of the Allisons . Warmer climates in North Africa and Pacific were better suited to the P38. Thanks to Mr. Dahl for his comprehensive life experience in wartime.
" The P38 did not do well in the ETO due to the cold weather causing the turbosuperchargers to overboost resulting from damage to the early design intake manifolds and subsequent destruction of the Allisons" That's only half-true and leaves out quite a bit of the story of the ETO fighter planes, all of them, in fact. There were reliability issues with the Allisons which were solved in at least two ways: one replacing them with Merlins which had better reliability at high altitudes in low temperatures (but still flew only one engine per plane) and two improving the turbo-supercharged Allisons, which was done by switching to port fuel injection. It was a trade-off, in mid-43 the P-38s were already in the ETO and the P-51B had yet to actually be deployed to the ETO. At that time it was still the equivalent of a gleam in its' Daddy's eye. The engine had to be licensed to Packard who had to duplicate it, make some improvements along the way (the RR Merlin wasn't exactly perfect either) and then the engine mated to the P-51 airframe, tested-out and then shipped to the ETO in quantity to not only allow the P-38Gs in the ETO to be shipped to the Pacific but also to increase the overall number of fighters. So in the late months of 1943 and the early months of 1944 the P-47, P-38 and Spitfire were all used for long-range high-altitude escort for deep-penetration bomber missions over Germany. True, some of these P-38G escorts reported up to 50% strength on target due to engine problems, but having engine problems in P-38 due to a complication based on cruising for hours at high altitude in cold weather...that was a problem dealt with simply by flying the plane back at a lower altitude. Having the same problem in a single-engine fighter meant ditching the plane somewhere, quite likely over German-held territory. Basically another reason why the Mustang only saw service in the Pacific near the end of the war....but that's another story entirely. Anyway the point is don't make it like the early and mid P-38s uniformly had such problems. They did have such problems flying high-altitude escort missions but it is not like every Allison blew up as a result of trying to fly such missions. They might have had more problems than with the Merlins, but having a problem with an Allison in a P-38 usually meant that you flew home on one engine. Having a problem with a Merlin in a Mustang usually meant that you hoped that the Resistance got you before the Germans did. And even THAT depended on you having the problem at altitude, not on the deck, like on a strafing run or on takeoff or landing. So if you're going to flame on the P-38 at least flame it fairly. I'm very sure that most Mustang pilots would have been happy to trade back for a P-38 when they began strafing targets of opportunity instead of flying top-cover. Likewise even with just one ETO fighter group flying P-47s due to most of the P-47 groups swapping to Mustangs in 1943-44, the P-47 still destroyed the most Luftwaffe planes during the war. It didn't help the Mustangs' case that the P-47 was produced in roughly the same quantity and was practically entirely removed from the ETO in favor of the Mustang, did not fly nearly as many long-range escort missions as the Mustang, yet the P-47 still beat it out in total kills. Of course in the Pacific the USAAF had the two highest-scoring American aces of the war in the P-38 in McGuire and Bong, but that runs contrary to the premise of your post. Not saying there weren't any high-scoring Mustang aces (of course there were) but it is what it is. Two Allison LC engines vs 1 P&W air-cooled radial vs 1 Packard/Merlin LC engine and the results were...fairly even all-around, I'd say. Maybe it was up to the pilots more so than the engines? Nah...it's a simple fact that mission survival depended as much on the plane getting the pilot back home as it did on the pilot not getting shot down in flames...in the ETO after 1943 the Mustang pretty-much had the skies to itself. In the Pacific the P-38 still had to contend with USN fighters like the Wildcat, Hellcat & Corsair. If you look at overall numbers of enemy fighters destroyed, what can Mustang pilots really say for themselves other than they just had too much "help" from Spitfires, P-38s and P-47s, not to mention Typhoons and Tempests? Anyway I think that you're harshing on the p-38 way out of proportion to the problems even the early & mid model P-38s had in the ETO. It's a simple fact that the later model P-38s simply didn't have the same problems.
I don't have to look at user names to assume you are male. Men are so into the machines. Women mad on WW2 can tell you the family tree of the pilot, how many children, how he met his wife... The name of other crew, when they died, where they are buried and whose grandfather has a personal scandal that made the papers... Lol
Praise skill, quick thinking, good aircraft and such, plus some luck. You only hear from the survivors. "God" let millions of good men be shot to pieces or burned alive, I wouldn't praise such an entity and you can be fairly certain most in their excruciating final moments weren't doing so either.
@@Mrbfgray Well said. The ego of people claiming THEY were saved, but it never even crosses their mind that if they were thinking logically, rationally, they are saying thousands - millions of people are NOT loved by God. God happy to have thousands of Allies starved to death, tortured, etc - but none of that matters. Just as long as the person making these claims, feels THEY are Special to God.
@@shawnpa That is due to conditioned upbringing, which shuts down rational thinking, shuts down binary logic. To openly question the claims often means losing local social acceptance and even, often, rejection by family. In those cases, it is very hard to openly challenge claims made all your life - and it IS much easier. No challenging thoughts, no higher education necessary. I had one church goer say to me, "I was looking at my science text books at school and all that hard work - or I could just read the bible." He also believed in God, because he got a huge crush on a girl and decided that God had created her for him. She wasn't consulted. Luckily, God didn't create a 50 year old fat lady, with incipient moustache for him, because THAT would be awkward...
i think ambient temperatures had a lot to do with it. high altitude/europe was such sub-zero temps it affected the supercharger performance. the 38 liked the warmer tropical temps apparently.
It was the Allison engine. It was fine for flying medium and low altitudes but insufficient for flying at high altitudes in Europe. In fact, Kelly Johnson had detailed designed plans ready for incorporating the Merlin into the plane but the U.S. gov't stepped in and said no. Every time we used a Merlin in the P-51 it was costing $600 in royalties. They had already over spent millions in developing the Allison and they wanted to put that to good use. Unfortunately, the early war efforts and the P-38 pilot's in the ETO suffered from that financial decision. Imagine a Merlin powered P-38 though! What could/should have been. Also it was the compressibility problem. All the Germans had to do was dive away and the early P-38 could not follow.
The reasons behind P-38's lackluster performance in the ETO were a lot more complicated than many seem to realize. Had the turbocharged lightnings been delivered to Britain and France as Lockheed engineers intended, the lightning could have been exposed to European climate conditions much earlier in the war. Having them available for the Battle of Britain would have given the Lightnings a home field safety net while also gaining valuable experience in sorting out tactical and technical problems. This was a tragic lost opportunity that many inexperienced american pilots would pay for later on. When the Lightnings did return much later, it was primarily in the offensive role. Meaning, little to no chance to fight along side experienced Spitfires above friendly territory. The Spit was and remains a wonderful and graceful bird, but it did not, and was never able to take the fight to Germany. At least, not before D-day. The early P47s lacked the range and the P51's were not ready. It was only the Lightnings that could be the first to face the most advanced and experienced airforce in the world right on the Germany's doorstep. Even later on when the Mustangs came on the scene there were still issues with USAF doctrine that tied pilots' hands. While it is true that Kelly Johnson did have plans to retrofit the lightning for Merlins, this was not a silver bullet solution to any of these problems. The Merlin engine swap would have made the plane heavier, and the difference in top speed was not enough to be worth while. It would have been a little faster at some altitudes, but slower at others. A far superior upgrade would have been the paddle propped K-variant. Unfortunately, the modifications to the assembly line would have delayed production by several weeks and Lockheed was not allowed to implement this upgrade. Its doubtful a Merlin engine swap would have ever been approved, since it required far more extensive modification than a 'prop swap'. In spite of all that, the P38 did still trade favorably against European foes, and did even better in Africa and the Mediterranean theaters. Like most successful designs, the P38 had to be flown a certain way in order to win against a competent opponent.
It makes no sense to you because you don't know the facts. The P-38 was designed as a high-speed interceptor. It wasn't designed to cruise at 30,000 feet for hours during European winters. The plane was essentially caught in a swing period between two different climates and two very-different missions...the very first P-38 prototype set a cross-continental speed record in 1939 of just over 7 hrs not including 2 refueling stops and was the first military plane able to sustain over 400mph in level flight. So the speed, durability and performance were there from the start. That doesn't mean that the pilots were well-trained for combat right from the start, even in the Pacific pilots transferring to P-38s from P-40s had to make use of their experience flying boom & zoom tactics against Japanese fighters. In the ETO, trained American pilots like the Eagle Squadrons simply flew their Spitfires for the USAAF instead of for the RAF and they transferred into existing P-38, P-47 or the forthcoming P-51 squadrons. The Spitfires made use of the Merlin engine which initially in the Merlin 40-series was a single-stage single-speed supercharged engine like the Allison in the P-51A, and so not rated for combat above 15,000 ft, and as such the real difference between the Merlin and Allison came when the Merlin 60 series was developed, which initially had a turbosupercharged confiiguration just like the Allison turbosupercharged config in the P-38 but Merlin engineers decided that that option was too big and heavy and switched to a compact, light and efficient 2-stage 2-speed intercooled supercharged unit in the Merlin 60...actually flown and tested in the ETO at altitudes up to 12km as required by the specification by which it was ordered by the British air ministry. The P-38s turbo-supercharged configuration just wasn't tested up to such a high altitude, and its reliability at 30,000ft and up did not initially match that of the Merlin 60. Improvements were made but they were not available to deployed planes until after Big Week and the interim solution for long-range fighter escort at high altitudes in the ETO (a "necessity" discovered in late 1943) was just to swap the ETO P-38Es and Gs flying long range bomber escort in the ETO to the Pacific theatre where they performed very well and replace them with P-51Bs powered by the Packard version of the Merlin 60. The same happened with the P-47 since it had the highest fuel-consumption of the 3 planes. The mixed-use ETO P-47 and P-38 squadrons that did not switch over to P-51s (the squadrons that regularly flew ground-attack missions refused to swap over to the P-51) continued to fly and fight until the end of the war and the squadrons that flew the plane continued to receive improved versions of the plane, with more power, fuel injection, boosted controls and dive-flaps to limit the compressibility problem.... given the inherent advantages of the twin-engine layout the P-38 did develop into an excellent fighter, one of the best if not the best fighter of the war. For example with counter-rotating props its pilots never had to deal with the P-factor, its guns fired in line from the nose and the same weapons that normally had to be aimed to converge in front of the nose were free to fire in a straight line and in a stable platform like the P-38, had twice the effective range on top of superior stability and roll-rate. It did become a legitimate top-class all-around fighter plane...just not in time for the high altitude escort role the P-51B stepped into in early 1944...which really was the best role *for* the P-51. The problem is that most people who comment on the P-38 don't know all this and would rather group them all into the same plane. Which is highly unfair to the plane. It would be like grouping all the Spitfires or Mustangs together which would absolutely ignore the latter versions with improved carburetion, the entire Merlin 60 series and the Griffon series. The Mustang, in contrast, really came in only two versions, the initial Allison single-stage supercharger version and the later with the Merlin 60 clone of an engine. The twin Mustang arriving too late in the war to be of any real significance, unless you count "getting shot down in large numbers by Mig15s in Korea" to be significant. The mentality of a high-school stoner with ADHD is hardly enough to truly understand the P-38s place in history.
How can ANYONE not listen to everything these men have to say . I was fortunate growing up and having these men/women of the greatest generation being my aunts&uncles . My dad fought in the SoPacific as did his oldest brother flying P38s.
It really pisses them off when I say the Corsairs were the best things flying . Thats how I learned to duck so well .
You do love to shit stir, pmsl
This guy flew a lot of missions, tells great stories modestly, and can still fly through a 40 minute monologue without navigation aids.
19 and buzzin around in a P-38. Greatest generation. I would like to think today’s kids could do the same but sadly.........
The kids nowadays can stare at a cellphone all day and non-stop text :-) I can't do that :-)
It's a damn shame these guys couldn't live forever.
Thank you for your service sir , Australia is gratful
guys like this are my heroes. SALUTE!!
Excellent film. Excellent man. Thank you Perry !
Wow, the 55th tying string between 2 airplanes and coming back with it intact! The plane holding itself in the vertical while the other stalls out! Cutting the right engine and spinning the airplane to defeat the Zero on his tail! Great P-38 stories! Thanks Perry!
True Warrior Hero
right when we needed him.
Thank you Sir!
Look everyone, this man is the true definition of the term 'Hero'
unlike today where often anybody is termed 'a hero' by the media if they expose themselves to even the slightest risk
Right, Rotax. A big hero was Catlin remember, a few years ago changing to a woman.
Catlin.......a big hero by media standards.
Crazy world isn't it.
Born 1922. Age17 in 1939
Wish the year of recording was clearly labelled.
what a coherent talk - best i've seen so far. admirable chap.
Very enjoyable ! He's so clear and well spoken
Great line... 35:15 "... man, I was on that gun like a duck on a Junebug."
So often it seems that some of the best pilots are prone to breaking some of the strict military rules. I wonder how many potentially great pilots were turned away on technicalities or broken rules just as Dahl almost was.
I too qualified for cadet pilot school USAF. 1962. Firewalled the AFOQT. 98th FIS at Dover AFB. Screwed out of school by Exec major. C ‘est la vie!!!
The lightning was an excellent low altitude fighter bomber in Europe. Engines had a lot of power at lower altitudes. Almost the opposite in the pacific.
Lightning Strike
GUS
135 octane. Nice...
Amazing true air combat stories from WW2 Pacific P-38 pilot with 9 kills
A great account of a brave American pilot (second to none) flying a great Lockeed fighter. The P38 did not do well in the ETO due to the cold weather causing the turbosuperchargers to overboost resulting from damage to the early design intake manifolds and subsequent destruction of the Allisons . Warmer climates in North Africa and Pacific were better suited to the P38. Thanks to Mr. Dahl for his comprehensive life experience in wartime.
" The P38 did not do well in the ETO due to the cold weather causing the turbosuperchargers to overboost resulting from damage to the early design intake manifolds and subsequent destruction of the Allisons"
That's only half-true and leaves out quite a bit of the story of the ETO fighter planes, all of them, in fact. There were reliability issues with the Allisons which were solved in at least two ways: one replacing them with Merlins which had better reliability at high altitudes in low temperatures (but still flew only one engine per plane) and two improving the turbo-supercharged Allisons, which was done by switching to port fuel injection. It was a trade-off, in mid-43 the P-38s were already in the ETO and the P-51B had yet to actually be deployed to the ETO. At that time it was still the equivalent of a gleam in its' Daddy's eye. The engine had to be licensed to Packard who had to duplicate it, make some improvements along the way (the RR Merlin wasn't exactly perfect either) and then the engine mated to the P-51 airframe, tested-out and then shipped to the ETO in quantity to not only allow the P-38Gs in the ETO to be shipped to the Pacific but also to increase the overall number of fighters. So in the late months of 1943 and the early months of 1944 the P-47, P-38 and Spitfire were all used for long-range high-altitude escort for deep-penetration bomber missions over Germany. True, some of these P-38G escorts reported up to 50% strength on target due to engine problems, but having engine problems in P-38 due to a complication based on cruising for hours at high altitude in cold weather...that was a problem dealt with simply by flying the plane back at a lower altitude. Having the same problem in a single-engine fighter meant ditching the plane somewhere, quite likely over German-held territory. Basically another reason why the Mustang only saw service in the Pacific near the end of the war....but that's another story entirely.
Anyway the point is don't make it like the early and mid P-38s uniformly had such problems. They did have such problems flying high-altitude escort missions but it is not like every Allison blew up as a result of trying to fly such missions. They might have had more problems than with the Merlins, but having a problem with an Allison in a P-38 usually meant that you flew home on one engine. Having a problem with a Merlin in a Mustang usually meant that you hoped that the Resistance got you before the Germans did. And even THAT depended on you having the problem at altitude, not on the deck, like on a strafing run or on takeoff or landing. So if you're going to flame on the P-38 at least flame it fairly. I'm very sure that most Mustang pilots would have been happy to trade back for a P-38 when they began strafing targets of opportunity instead of flying top-cover. Likewise even with just one ETO fighter group flying P-47s due to most of the P-47 groups swapping to Mustangs in 1943-44, the P-47 still destroyed the most Luftwaffe planes during the war. It didn't help the Mustangs' case that the P-47 was produced in roughly the same quantity and was practically entirely removed from the ETO in favor of the Mustang, did not fly nearly as many long-range escort missions as the Mustang, yet the P-47 still beat it out in total kills. Of course in the Pacific the USAAF had the two highest-scoring American aces of the war in the P-38 in McGuire and Bong, but that runs contrary to the premise of your post. Not saying there weren't any high-scoring Mustang aces (of course there were) but it is what it is. Two Allison LC engines vs 1 P&W air-cooled radial vs 1 Packard/Merlin LC engine and the results were...fairly even all-around, I'd say. Maybe it was up to the pilots more so than the engines? Nah...it's a simple fact that mission survival depended as much on the plane getting the pilot back home as it did on the pilot not getting shot down in flames...in the ETO after 1943 the Mustang pretty-much had the skies to itself. In the Pacific the P-38 still had to contend with USN fighters like the Wildcat, Hellcat & Corsair. If you look at overall numbers of enemy fighters destroyed, what can Mustang pilots really say for themselves other than they just had too much "help" from Spitfires, P-38s and P-47s, not to mention Typhoons and Tempests?
Anyway I think that you're harshing on the p-38 way out of proportion to the problems even the early & mid model P-38s had in the ETO. It's a simple fact that the later model P-38s simply didn't have the same problems.
touristguy87 ; Exactly right. The 8th Fighter Command seemed to have problems with the 38 that were non-issues for everyone else.
I don't have to look at user names to assume you are male. Men are so into the machines.
Women mad on WW2 can tell you the family tree of the pilot, how many children, how he met his wife... The name of other crew, when they died, where they are buried and whose grandfather has a personal scandal that made the papers...
Lol
I could listen to PJ all day.
Facinating!
Thank you Sir, God bless you
This man's history is a miraculous story! Praise God!
Praise skill, quick thinking, good aircraft and such, plus some luck. You only hear from the survivors. "God" let millions of good men be shot to pieces or burned alive, I wouldn't praise such an entity and you can be fairly certain most in their excruciating final moments weren't doing so either.
@@Mrbfgray ........These Jesus Freaks don't want to talk about the Guys GOD KILLED
Listen to these stories. Many vets credit God for surviving.
@@Mrbfgray Well said.
The ego of people claiming THEY were saved, but it never even crosses their mind that if they were thinking logically, rationally, they are saying thousands - millions of people are NOT loved by God. God happy to have thousands of Allies starved to death, tortured, etc - but none of that matters. Just as long as the person making these claims, feels THEY are Special to God.
@@shawnpa That is due to conditioned upbringing, which shuts down rational thinking, shuts down binary logic. To openly question the claims often means losing local social acceptance and even, often, rejection by family.
In those cases, it is very hard to openly challenge claims made all your life - and it IS much easier. No challenging thoughts, no higher education necessary.
I had one church goer say to me, "I was looking at my science text books at school and all that hard work - or I could just read the bible." He also believed in God, because he got a huge crush on a girl and decided that God had created her for him. She wasn't consulted. Luckily, God didn't create a 50 year old fat lady, with incipient moustache for him, because THAT would be awkward...
I still wonder why the P-38 had such bad luck in the ETO.
Training? Different bastards? Bad tactics?
Who knows?
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
i think ambient temperatures had a lot to do with it. high altitude/europe was such sub-zero temps it affected the supercharger performance. the 38 liked the warmer tropical temps apparently.
It was the Allison engine. It was fine for flying medium and low altitudes but insufficient for flying at high altitudes in Europe. In fact, Kelly Johnson had detailed designed plans ready for incorporating the Merlin into the plane but the U.S. gov't stepped in and said no. Every time we used a Merlin in the P-51 it was costing $600 in royalties. They had already over spent millions in developing the Allison and they wanted to put that to good use. Unfortunately, the early war efforts and the P-38 pilot's in the ETO suffered from that financial decision. Imagine a Merlin powered P-38 though! What could/should have been.
Also it was the compressibility problem. All the Germans had to do was dive away and the early P-38 could not follow.
The reasons behind P-38's lackluster performance in the ETO were a lot more complicated than many seem to realize.
Had the turbocharged lightnings been delivered to Britain and France as Lockheed engineers intended, the lightning could have been exposed to European climate conditions much earlier in the war. Having them available for the Battle of Britain would have given the Lightnings a home field safety net while also gaining valuable experience in sorting out tactical and technical problems. This was a tragic lost opportunity that many inexperienced american pilots would pay for later on.
When the Lightnings did return much later, it was primarily in the offensive role. Meaning, little to no chance to fight along side experienced Spitfires above friendly territory. The Spit was and remains a wonderful and graceful bird, but it did not, and was never able to take the fight to Germany. At least, not before D-day. The early P47s lacked the range and the P51's were not ready. It was only the Lightnings that could be the first to face the most advanced and experienced airforce in the world right on the Germany's doorstep. Even later on when the Mustangs came on the scene there were still issues with USAF doctrine that tied pilots' hands.
While it is true that Kelly Johnson did have plans to retrofit the lightning for Merlins, this was not a silver bullet solution to any of these problems. The Merlin engine swap would have made the plane heavier, and the difference in top speed was not enough to be worth while. It would have been a little faster at some altitudes, but slower at others. A far superior upgrade would have been the paddle propped K-variant. Unfortunately, the modifications to the assembly line would have delayed production by several weeks and Lockheed was not allowed to implement this upgrade. Its doubtful a Merlin engine swap would have ever been approved, since it required far more extensive modification than a 'prop swap'.
In spite of all that, the P38 did still trade favorably against European foes, and did even better in Africa and the Mediterranean theaters. Like most successful designs, the P38 had to be flown a certain way in order to win against a competent opponent.
It makes no sense to you because you don't know the facts.
The P-38 was designed as a high-speed interceptor. It wasn't designed to cruise at 30,000 feet for hours during European winters. The plane was essentially caught in a swing period between two different climates and two very-different missions...the very first P-38 prototype set a cross-continental speed record in 1939 of just over 7 hrs not including 2 refueling stops and was the first military plane able to sustain over 400mph in level flight. So the speed, durability and performance were there from the start. That doesn't mean that the pilots were well-trained for combat right from the start, even in the Pacific pilots transferring to P-38s from P-40s had to make use of their experience flying boom & zoom tactics against Japanese fighters. In the ETO, trained American pilots like the Eagle Squadrons simply flew their Spitfires for the USAAF instead of for the RAF and they transferred into existing P-38, P-47 or the forthcoming P-51 squadrons. The Spitfires made use of the Merlin engine which initially in the Merlin 40-series was a single-stage single-speed supercharged engine like the Allison in the P-51A, and so not rated for combat above 15,000 ft, and as such the real difference between the Merlin and Allison came when the Merlin 60 series was developed, which initially had a turbosupercharged confiiguration just like the Allison turbosupercharged config in the P-38 but Merlin engineers decided that that option was too big and heavy and switched to a compact, light and efficient 2-stage 2-speed intercooled supercharged unit in the Merlin 60...actually flown and tested in the ETO at altitudes up to 12km as required by the specification by which it was ordered by the British air ministry. The P-38s turbo-supercharged configuration just wasn't tested up to such a high altitude, and its reliability at 30,000ft and up did not initially match that of the Merlin 60. Improvements were made but they were not available to deployed planes until after Big Week and the interim solution for long-range fighter escort at high altitudes in the ETO (a "necessity" discovered in late 1943) was just to swap the ETO P-38Es and Gs flying long range bomber escort in the ETO to the Pacific theatre where they performed very well and replace them with P-51Bs powered by the Packard version of the Merlin 60. The same happened with the P-47 since it had the highest fuel-consumption of the 3 planes. The mixed-use ETO P-47 and P-38 squadrons that did not switch over to P-51s (the squadrons that regularly flew ground-attack missions refused to swap over to the P-51) continued to fly and fight until the end of the war and the squadrons that flew the plane continued to receive improved versions of the plane, with more power, fuel injection, boosted controls and dive-flaps to limit the compressibility problem.... given the inherent advantages of the twin-engine layout the P-38 did develop into an excellent fighter, one of the best if not the best fighter of the war. For example with counter-rotating props its pilots never had to deal with the P-factor, its guns fired in line from the nose and the same weapons that normally had to be aimed to converge in front of the nose were free to fire in a straight line and in a stable platform like the P-38, had twice the effective range on top of superior stability and roll-rate. It did become a legitimate top-class all-around fighter plane...just not in time for the high altitude escort role the P-51B stepped into in early 1944...which really was the best role *for* the P-51.
The problem is that most people who comment on the P-38 don't know all this and would rather group them all into the same plane. Which is highly unfair to the plane. It would be like grouping all the Spitfires or Mustangs together which would absolutely ignore the latter versions with improved carburetion, the entire Merlin 60 series and the Griffon series. The Mustang, in contrast, really came in only two versions, the initial Allison single-stage supercharger version and the later with the Merlin 60 clone of an engine. The twin Mustang arriving too late in the war to be of any real significance, unless you count "getting shot down in large numbers by Mig15s in Korea" to be significant. The mentality of a high-school stoner with ADHD is hardly enough to truly understand the P-38s place in history.
@@touristguy87 Thank-you and very informative. It's a pity about your first and last sentences . Ta.
What’s the best gun. Whatever I have in my hand at the time.
Awesome...so interesting..
But how old is this veteran now..
He was 17 in high school in 1937, therefore was born approximately 1920. This is 2019, approaching 99 - 100.
HarryKari Touche ...WoW ...he is so Vivid and keen..
thanks for telling.. appreciated
@@MonkPetite Col.Dahl is 96. He also flew in Korea and Vietnam.My Dad was his tent mate in the 432nd.
Amazing!!