I got a strange feeling when i see those film from WWII. Think- nobody in this vid is still alive and nothing in these vids probably still exists anymore Even the place wouldn't be recognizeable anymore! Anyhow, interesting video and really beautiful bird. Thank you for sharing.
Just gorgeous! An F5E version of the P-38. Since the paint coverage is consistent I would say this is PR blue rather than Haze or Synthetic Haze. The vehicle at 0:52 looks like it may be a Ford GPA or Seep, an amphibious version of the jeep. Thanks for posting!
OMG...How cool is that. Former aviator here and I just love watching the raw machinery and technology that comes together in these fantastic flying machines! Thanks for posting and thanks to Mark S. and his dad Captain Frank S.
There were several things about the P38 that caused it problems in Europe. 1) When the P38's first started over there you had green American pilots going against German Experten with several years of combat experience. The relative difference in experience caused the new US pilots problems no matter what they were flying. As they gained experience and as the German Veterans were thinned out - that changed. 2) The P38 was a multi-engine aircraft and all multi-engine aircraft are more difficult to fly than single engine aircraft. Thus, green pilots were not able to get the best out of the aircraft that it had to give. 3) It's engines had a problem keeping the oil warn enough at high altitudes, the parts of the oil would separate and the engines would run rough. Same thing with the lead in the fuel to prevent knocking (the reason that they had leaded gasoline) which caused the engines to back fire. Much of that was fixed but by the time the fixes were implemented the P51's had taken over long range escort. 4) Not having a big warm engine right in front of him - the pilot got cold at high altitude. They eventually created ducts to bring some heat off the engines into the cockpit but that took a while and mean while the pilots were cold. 5) P38's suffered from compressibility. This has to do with high speed air locking the controls at high speeds, as in dives. Because of this - the Germans knew that the P38 pilots were afraid to dive and would just dive away from them if they got into trouble. They created Compressibility flaps that broke up the high speed air going under the aircraft and restored control functionality but again this came late and the P51's took over. 6) The P38, like other multi-engine aircraft had a poor roll rate - but - it, unlike the Me110 - had counter rotating propellers. By increasing the throttle on the outboard engine in a turn and decreasing it on the inboard engine - a pilot could use the prop to claw himself around. It could also climb and loop well. Flown by a good pilot - the P38 could out turn a Spitfire or pretty much anything else - but - you had to have a pilot that was experienced enough and confident enough in his aircraft to do that. Those pilots put off by the oil separation, the fuel separation and the problems with compressibility - weren't going to be doing those kinds of things. Essentially, it was to complicated an aircraft for them to get the best out of it. In the Pacific, the weather was warmer and they didn't have the problems they had in Europe at high altitude. The pilots there were all transitioning out of P40's and P39's and were veterans. Against the A6M's the US pilots already used boom and zoom tactics that took away the strength of the Zero's low speed maneuverability, whereas in Europe the Germans were using the same tactics. With missions flown over vastly wider amounts of water than the English Channel - and the fact that what wasn't water was jungle (that was deadlier than the water) pilots LOVED having two engines. When Lindbergh showed them how to lean their mixtures and greatly extend their ranges - and fuel reserves - this made long range operations in the vast expanses of the Pacific possible. Given the fact that the Pacific had always been the poor step child when it came to aircraft availability as the P51's became preferred in Europe the guys in the Pacific were very happy to have P38's. .
Bob - The P38, due to size and twin boom with twin prop engines, was not the best in a turning dog-fight - also I would challenge your assertion that it could out turn a Spit - or a Mosquito for that matter.
@@curiouslarry6933 I described how they could turn tightly by using the engines. A better choice of words though would have been for me to say they out maneuvered a Spitfire. The P-38 was actually really good at loops. So - it could work things vertically as well as horizontally. There are two different dogfights between Spitfires and P-38's that have been commented on. The Spitfire won one of them - and the P-38 - to the utter astonishment of all those present but it's pilot - won the other. The Spitfire winning is cited in the book "Night Fighter" and the P-38 winning is cited in the book "Top Guns". Amazon has both. THE POINT of all that - was that it was the pilot that made the difference. It is my impression that in neither dog fight did we have experts against novices. But - if you have two skilled pilots - the one who is more skilled or who has more familiarity with what his aircraft and his opponents aircraft can do - than his opponent - has the advantage. The problem with the P-38 was that it took more skill to get the most out of it than a less complex aircraft. Lockheed sent over it's top test pilot and engineer and they toured P-38 units - showing them - what the aircraft COULD do. They also determined the cause of some of it's problems and had kits created to fix them. Those kits were then shot down by the RAF by mistake. I got to meet that test pilot at a talk on P-38's 40 some years ago and it was very interesting. This guy - given his job - was probably the best P-38 pilot in the world and he was very knowledgeable about his aircraft. I wish I had a recording of his talk but I don't. Could the average P-38 pilot out maneuver a Spitfire flown by an average Spitfire pilot? Probably not. But could a very, knowledgeable P-38 pilot out maneuver a knowledgeable Spitfire pilot - yes - one did. The point here - is what COULD be done - not what WAS done on a routine basis. The thing with the P-51 was that it had great range - like the P-38 - but it was much less complicated and easier for the average pilot to get the most out of. So they switched over to P-51's for long range bomber escort and sent the P-38's they kept in Europe down to do ground attack - which they did a lot better than P-51's ... The thing is - where were the P-51's and Spitfires in 1942? Not able to do long range bomber escort. Whatever it's problems the P-38's were the only fighters we had who could do long range missions then. As to a Mosquito? How the hell would you know? The Mosquito was NOT a fighter plane. It was an attack aircraft and an Intruder. It did what it was designed to do very well - but - it wasn't a fighter plane and I doubt seriously that it could maneuver with any aircraft that was. If you have any incidents that specifically record Mosquito's in dog fights I'd be interested to hear them - but I've never heard of one. I don't doubt that there were Mosquito air-to-air victories - but I've never heard of one and that was NOT what the aircraft was known for. Don't be one of those mindless twits who think "It's British - It's Better!" ... there are enough already ... we don't need any more ... .
Bob Smith - As you pointed out in your follow up, it often came down to just how good/experienced, one pilot involved was to another, but heck, if a P38 was such a good dog fighter with the more advanced single engine types, then why the hell didn't the 8th AF use them in large and regular amounts to just that purpose - blasting Me109s and Fw190s out of the skies? P51s and Spitfires, {particularly the later marques] were well able to do so.
Nice write-up Bob. I have seen all this info, but in bit and pieces over the decades. It is most convenient to see it all in one post. Regarding point #6, I have read that the P-38 was the most complex aircraft to control, with over 160 separate controls to fool with. Try that with a gaggle of Zeroes trying to kill you. :-) Many thanks for the memories.
Hi Richard! I really enjoyed watching this 16mm film! I believe that is Colonel Al Bailey, Commanding Officer of the 40th PRS! My name is Mark W Steinbach, my Dad, Captain Frank W Steinbach was a Pilot in the 40th PRS. He was Awarded The Distinguished Flying Cross and Two Air Medals. I sure enjoyed seeing the photographs Robert took! This is the only time I have seen the 40th PRS F-5E in color! Beautiful! I knew Glenn Hensley. My Dad flew "The Hump" in a P-38 Lightning! He had to take a Nurse in an Emergency Flight Mission ( 2 Seat ). Dad and the 40th PRS flew on many Combat Missions. Colonel Albert Bailey ( Previously in The 17th PRS ) told me about one Mission my Dad flew on with the 40th PRS. They photographed Japanese Installations in Bangkok, Thailand. A 7 Hour Mission! Facebook Page; 40th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron China Burma India Theater WWII
I just received a FB message from Phil Bailey, Phil's Great Uncle is Colonel Albert Bailey. Colonel Bailey just Celebrated His 102nd Birthday Last Month!!! Happy Birthday, Colonel Bailey!!!
Judging by the different colors of the spinners, I think there are at least three different squadrons shown here. The lack of codes makes it hard to identify them, though.
That would be nice but I'd rather have one of the later ones. Longer range and faster. I like range. LOL, my VW Jetta will go over 630 miles on 14 gallons of Diesel. edit: oh and I have to agree on the no music. Some folks put really obnoxious music on their videos and ruins it for a lot of us. To me the best music is those twin Allison V-1710s flying by at high speed. Corsairs have their whistle but the engine still sounds like a giant Harley. Boy did I piss off a biker one day when I asked him where the rest of the cylinders were on his radial engine. Figuring their 45 degree firing order they should have 6 more cylinders. Except single row radials are almost all odd numbers of cylinders.
If I remember Martin Caiden's book "Forked Tail Devil" right, he said that almost half the P-38 airframes were the F4 recon version. One of the stories he retold was of a P-38 sent on a recon mission over Japanese held territory. I don't remember if it was the F4 or not or whether he said, but the mission was crucial and the pilot kept taking pictures on the run they wanted him to cover as Zeros were climbing to intercept him. He stopped and headed for home after they shot out one of his engines and he put it in a shallow dive and full power to the other engine and proceeded to outrun the zeros. There's pictures of P-38s that survived horrific damage, some as bad as some of the B-17s that came home, never to fly again but brought home the pilots. The book is an awesome read, along with his other books. My favorite is "Thunderbolt" about Robert S. Johnson and his time in the P-47.
About 15% of P-38 were recon versions and maybe half were converted in the field. The photo recon version was about 10 to 15 mph faster than the fighter due to being lighter and not having the guns in the nose - which required airflow through the openings for cooling making it less streamlined. This unit has the special paint that was supposed to make it much harder to see in the sky.
Maybe so, I only have the one book I remember anything about the numbers and it's been a long time since I read it. Either way, it's still what I consider the best fighter we had in WW2. The only reason I know of that they went with the P-51s instead was cost per plane. I've talked to a P-51 pilot who was a friend of my dad, who was a crew chief and flew top gun turret in B-17. His friend flew with the long range tanks installed and he said they would burn the fuel in that tank before the drop tanks because it made the plane tail heavy. Flying a plane that's tail heavy is very scary at times and downright dangerous if you're not exceptionally skilled. That's one pilot's story. He could have been telling fairy tales for all I know but it sounds logical. I've experimented with CG on models and they get pretty touchy even toward the rearward limit on the plans. I like stable planes. I've had some that were so stable you could not make them spin. By moving the CG back I managed a half turn once on my trainer plane. A Carl Goldberg Eagle 63.
@@chrisbaker2903 Yeah. On the P51 and using the fuel in the internal long range tank first - yes - I've read that somewhere. Aircraft handled very badly with that tank full. It would fly but they used up that fuel as soon as they could. The drop tanks - if they wanted to get rid of them - they could. That internal long range tank - they couldn't, so they used it first. .
@@chrisbaker2903 P38 best fighter? LOL Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. It's actually the very opposite - It was one of the POOREST performing planes in the fighter role. P38 was a lousy fighter and was easily outmaneuvered by ANY, and I mean ANY enemy fighter. P38s were known for coming home with a lot of battle damage, cause that's what they were known for - running AWAY from battle. A P38's best chance of surviving a furball with enemy fighters was throttling up to the maximum and escaping the danger zone. That's the only thing it could do better - outrun enemy fighters. It was otherwise a poor fighter and was mainly used in support roles such as reconnaissance and ground attack, it was also used as a long range bomber protector but fared poorly against enemy fighters, thus the P51 was developed to take that role. You are ridiculous to even mention the decision to build more P51 as it being a cheaper plane to build instead of the P38. They are two different planes, with two very different places in air.
I just saw a cool video of how to get in and out of a P-38, 0:20 seconds in you can see an angular loop beneath the belly tank, that’s the bottom rung of a fold out ladder at back of the cockpit.😎
Hahaha. I love it. That crew chief wasn't going to let the steering damper prevent that mission!! Brings back memories of what we did on C130s, B52s, A10s and even corporate jets to make the missions. That guy was a great crewchief!! LOL. And I'm being serious.
With 5 guns in the nose aimed straight out, as opposed to wing mounted guns aimed to converge at a certain point, the p38 hit exceptionally hard. If its guns caught you, it meant you probably got hit by 5 guns.
One of my two favorite warbirds of that era [ F4U Corsair and P 38 Lightning ]. Both of them exceptional in the air to air arena, and both feared by the enemy.
Don't forget the P-47. Shot down more enemy aircraft than any other in EU. Find the book Thunderbolt by Martin Caiden and learn about Robert S.Johnson, who shot down 28 German fighters in less than 11 months before being rotated back to the states to sell savings bonds. At that time he was the EU leading Ace.
@@danielburgess7785 Even when armed, a P-38's greatest asset was speed. A Lightning pilot out on his own (as PR pilots nearly always were) would be extremely foolish to enter an engagement with even a couple of Zekes or Oscars. Better to use your superior speed and get the hell out of there.
Pat Hines - An old timer I used to work with flew unarmed Mosquitoes on Pathfinder missions over Germany, and on one occasion when a pair of Me262s tried to bounce him, he just went into a power dive and engaged in tight turns, until they ran low in fuel and headed for home. He crewed one of a pair of mosquitoes that went Stateside to do evaluation sorties and tests against the then new P38 - the RAF pilots showed off a bit, doing some 'tricks' that were considered too dangerous to do in P38s. Never-the-less the P38 was a well rated twin boomer.
I've read that a P-38J pilot of the 318th F.G., 7th Air Force over the Pacific Ocean, in January 1945 flew a mission of 9 hours 32 minutes before running out of gas. He had to parachute over water before making it to his airstrip, but was later retrieved by friendly forces.
where did you see it?. as far as I know it was locked up at my dads house in Orlando I took it off of 8mm film. some of the film was so bad it could not be restore. I still have the original 8mm. from ww2
I saw it at the Air Force Museum in Dayton when I was a teenager in 1974 or 1975. I was really into WW2 planes but had never seen a blue P-38 with no guns. I asked one of the staff about it and he explained the F-4 version. I know all gun camera films were property of the AAF, so there must be 2 copies of this film.
The engineers originally tried two inward turning props, but they found that outward turning props gave better twin engine performance and stability for a gun platform.
Loved the blue camoflage. I'm more familiar with WW2 aircraft than ground vehicle's however I don't remember the small " duck like " car. I'm thinking this could be s captured Japanese vehicle put to use. What a runway and what bravery these young kids and men. Anybody know the vehicle. ? My father was in same fly class with Thomas McQuire Thomas father owned a Packard Dealership and on weekends they'd cruise San Antonio. Thomas loved to harass Lindberg as he out ranked him.
Question, The right engine turned C.W. and the left turned C.C.W.. Would it matter if the Right turned C.C.W. and the left C.W.? To me it would seam to still balance out. I know the British placed the same direction on both wings. Then complained of poor performance.
The P-38 prototype did in fact have props that turned inwards as seen from the top. This is best for single engine emergency operations as there is no "critical engine". However, the engineers found that by having both props turn outwards, they could get better twin engine performance and stability. A very surprising result, and a result that would be hard for engineers and pilots to accept or even contemplate. But to their credit they were open to wild ideas in their search for optimal performance.
I believe this was tried without much difference in performance. The reason for the much better performance of the Merlin in the P51 over the Allison was due primarily to the two speed/two stage supercharger on the Merlin. I believe the P38 had a turbo supercharging system somewhat like the P47. Check out the channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
@@martinneukomm8697 Ok! I didn't know that. I'll look into this more. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I love aircraft from WW2 and Korea. My Uncle served as a MARINE in the Korean war as a MARINE 1st Marine Corps 3rd battalion told me that Marine F4U Corsairs ground attacks were conducted at such said low altitudes that they could see the pilots grinning faces! I was in awe of this. Thanks again for your time!
Lockheed ran a design study on replacing the Allison with the Merlin. First, the Merlin literally wouldn't fit, it is too long. Second, even with the turbocharger and associated exhaust and intercooler plumbing, the Allison is lighter. The Allison is more reliable. The Allison is more difficult to damage in combat, and rugged enough to survive more damage. The Allison makes more horsepower, especially above 22,000 feet, it maintains sea level horsepower to 29,000 feet. The Allison burns less fuel while still making more power. The Merlin would have ruined the P-38. What the P-38 needed was to have the Curtiss Electric props replaced with Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle props.
@@martinneukomm8697 The Merlin P-38 was only a study on paper. A QEC package was also discussed. But like what was already said, the Merlin would not fit. It would have required a retooling of the engine nacelles and landing gear geometry. The Air Material Command wasn't going to shut down the P-38 production line to pursue this idea.
If by ugly you mean the color...well, no. Its called haze blue and it was an attempt to make the craft invisible against the background sky. Worked pretty well too.
He was trying to get the steering damper to release so the pilot could steer the aircraft. If you watch it starts to turn then stops turning. Great crew chief, wasn't going to let a stupid steering damper stop that mission. Great to see a crew chief in action and what really goes on.
Chris Baker - Gorgeous thing to look at - but the p38 had such a dreadful casualty rate it was withdrawn from European combat. In no way was it 'the greatest'! Took an eternity to get from cruise to combat mode, early models would kill you if dived at the speed of a German fighter, but above all - no fighter with wing mounted engines can roll quick enough to dogfight (see Me 110). ps. - the Mustang had vastly better fuel consumption hence huge range - That is why it took over from the Thunderbolt as bomber escort.
It wasn't withdrawn from the ETO. They just didn't bring on any more sqds. And they didn't do it because of the casualty rate but because one it had a cockpit heat problem and there were some parts of the turbosupercharger that kept freezing up. Also once they saw how successful they were in the Pacific and with P47s and P51s arriving in numbers to the ETO, the choice was made. A very dear late friend of mine, Royal Frey, former currater of the Air force museum flew P38s in late 44 before he was shot down by a FW 190D. The P38 In the museum is painted up as his aircraft.
Utterly false. The WORST the P-38 EVER did early on was a 1.3:1 kill to loss ratio, counting ALL P-38 losses due to accidents, fuel starvation, navigation errors, and mechanical failures. The P-38 closed out its service with the 8th AF with a 3:1 kill to loss ratio. The P-38 outnumbered the P-51 in the 8th AF until May/June 1944, when it was replaced for cost and logistical reasons. It remained in service with the 9th and 15th AF until the end of the war, and was the top scoring fighter there.
You won't see 'overhyped' color in my home movies c. 1967, just not real. Didn't know photoshop version of Kodak 'does it all' went back this far, bad enuf what they did to Z's Dallas . . . Oh, and those unedited WC photo evidence, too, no digitized anything, oh my . . .
I got a strange feeling when i see those film from WWII. Think- nobody in this vid is still alive and nothing in these vids probably still exists anymore Even the place wouldn't be recognizeable anymore! Anyhow, interesting video and really beautiful bird. Thank you for sharing.
Just gorgeous! An F5E version of the P-38. Since the paint coverage is consistent I would say this is PR blue rather than Haze or Synthetic Haze. The vehicle at 0:52 looks like it may be a Ford GPA or Seep, an amphibious version of the jeep. Thanks for posting!
OMG...How cool is that. Former aviator here and I just love watching the raw machinery and technology that comes together in these fantastic flying machines! Thanks for posting and thanks to Mark S. and his dad Captain Frank S.
There were several things about the P38 that caused it problems in Europe.
1) When the P38's first started over there you had green American pilots going against German Experten with several years of combat experience. The relative difference in experience caused the new US pilots problems no matter what they were flying. As they gained experience and as the German Veterans were thinned out - that changed.
2) The P38 was a multi-engine aircraft and all multi-engine aircraft are more difficult to fly than single engine aircraft. Thus, green pilots were not able to get the best out of the aircraft that it had to give.
3) It's engines had a problem keeping the oil warn enough at high altitudes, the parts of the oil would separate and the engines would run rough. Same thing with the lead in the fuel to prevent knocking (the reason that they had leaded gasoline) which caused the engines to back fire. Much of that was fixed but by the time the fixes were implemented the P51's had taken over long range escort.
4) Not having a big warm engine right in front of him - the pilot got cold at high altitude. They eventually created ducts to bring some heat off the engines into the cockpit but that took a while and mean while the pilots were cold.
5) P38's suffered from compressibility. This has to do with high speed air locking the controls at high speeds, as in dives. Because of this - the Germans knew that the P38 pilots were afraid to dive and would just dive away from them if they got into trouble. They created Compressibility flaps that broke up the high speed air going under the aircraft and restored control functionality but again this came late and the P51's took over.
6) The P38, like other multi-engine aircraft had a poor roll rate - but - it, unlike the Me110 - had counter rotating propellers. By increasing the throttle on the outboard engine in a turn and decreasing it on the inboard engine - a pilot could use the prop to claw himself around. It could also climb and loop well. Flown by a good pilot - the P38 could out turn a Spitfire or pretty much anything else - but - you had to have a pilot that was experienced enough and confident enough in his aircraft to do that. Those pilots put off by the oil separation, the fuel separation and the problems with compressibility - weren't going to be doing those kinds of things. Essentially, it was to complicated an aircraft for them to get the best out of it.
In the Pacific, the weather was warmer and they didn't have the problems they had in Europe at high altitude.
The pilots there were all transitioning out of P40's and P39's and were veterans.
Against the A6M's the US pilots already used boom and zoom tactics that took away the strength of the Zero's low speed maneuverability, whereas in Europe the Germans were using the same tactics.
With missions flown over vastly wider amounts of water than the English Channel - and the fact that what wasn't water was jungle (that was deadlier than the water) pilots LOVED having two engines.
When Lindbergh showed them how to lean their mixtures and greatly extend their ranges - and fuel reserves - this made long range operations in the vast expanses of the Pacific possible.
Given the fact that the Pacific had always been the poor step child when it came to aircraft availability as the P51's became preferred in Europe the guys in the Pacific were very happy to have P38's.
.
Bob - The P38, due to size and twin boom with twin prop engines, was not the best in a turning dog-fight - also I would challenge your assertion that it could out turn a Spit - or a Mosquito for that matter.
@@curiouslarry6933
I described how they could turn tightly by using the engines.
A better choice of words though would have been for me to say they out maneuvered a Spitfire.
The P-38 was actually really good at loops. So - it could work things vertically as well as horizontally.
There are two different dogfights between Spitfires and P-38's that have been commented on. The Spitfire won one of them - and the P-38 - to the utter astonishment of all those present but it's pilot - won the other. The Spitfire winning is cited in the book "Night Fighter" and the P-38 winning is cited in the book "Top Guns". Amazon has both.
THE POINT of all that - was that it was the pilot that made the difference. It is my impression that in neither dog fight did we have experts against novices. But - if you have two skilled pilots - the one who is more skilled or who has more familiarity with what his aircraft and his opponents aircraft can do - than his opponent - has the advantage.
The problem with the P-38 was that it took more skill to get the most out of it than a less complex aircraft. Lockheed sent over it's top test pilot and engineer and they toured P-38 units - showing them - what the aircraft COULD do. They also determined the cause of some of it's problems and had kits created to fix them. Those kits were then shot down by the RAF by mistake.
I got to meet that test pilot at a talk on P-38's 40 some years ago and it was very interesting. This guy - given his job - was probably the best P-38 pilot in the world and he was very knowledgeable about his aircraft. I wish I had a recording of his talk but I don't.
Could the average P-38 pilot out maneuver a Spitfire flown by an average Spitfire pilot? Probably not. But could a very, knowledgeable P-38 pilot out maneuver a knowledgeable Spitfire pilot - yes - one did.
The point here - is what COULD be done - not what WAS done on a routine basis.
The thing with the P-51 was that it had great range - like the P-38 - but it was much less complicated and easier for the average pilot to get the most out of. So they switched over to P-51's for long range bomber escort and sent the P-38's they kept in Europe down to do ground attack - which they did a lot better than P-51's ...
The thing is - where were the P-51's and Spitfires in 1942? Not able to do long range bomber escort. Whatever it's problems the P-38's were the only fighters we had who could do long range missions then.
As to a Mosquito? How the hell would you know? The Mosquito was NOT a fighter plane. It was an attack aircraft and an Intruder. It did what it was designed to do very well - but - it wasn't a fighter plane and I doubt seriously that it could maneuver with any aircraft that was. If you have any incidents that specifically record Mosquito's in dog fights I'd be interested to hear them - but I've never heard of one. I don't doubt that there were Mosquito air-to-air victories - but I've never heard of one and that was NOT what the aircraft was known for.
Don't be one of those mindless twits who think "It's British - It's Better!" ... there are enough already ... we don't need any more ...
.
Bob Smith - As you pointed out in your follow up, it often came down to just how good/experienced, one pilot involved was to another, but heck, if a P38 was such a good dog fighter with the more advanced single engine types, then why the hell didn't the 8th AF use them in large and regular amounts to just that purpose - blasting Me109s and Fw190s out of the skies? P51s and Spitfires, {particularly the later marques] were well able to do so.
@@curiouslarry6933
I already said that.
.
Nice write-up Bob. I have seen all this info, but in bit and pieces over the decades. It is most convenient to see it all in one post. Regarding point #6, I have read that the P-38 was the most complex aircraft to control, with over 160 separate controls to fool with. Try that with a gaggle of Zeroes trying to kill you. :-) Many thanks for the memories.
Still, wow. Those main wheel tires were huge. What a beautiful airplane. Thanks for sharing!
The P38 Lightening has always one of my favorite planes. I'd love to fly one of these beautiful birds.
Hi Richard! I really enjoyed watching this 16mm film! I believe that is Colonel Al Bailey, Commanding Officer of the 40th PRS! My name is Mark W Steinbach, my Dad, Captain Frank W Steinbach was a Pilot in the 40th PRS. He was Awarded The Distinguished Flying Cross and Two Air Medals. I sure enjoyed seeing the photographs Robert took! This is the only time I have seen the 40th PRS F-5E in color! Beautiful! I knew Glenn Hensley. My Dad flew "The Hump" in a P-38 Lightning! He had to take a Nurse in an Emergency Flight Mission ( 2 Seat ). Dad and the 40th PRS flew on many Combat Missions. Colonel Albert Bailey ( Previously in The 17th PRS ) told me about one Mission my Dad flew on with the 40th PRS. They photographed Japanese Installations in Bangkok, Thailand. A 7 Hour Mission! Facebook Page; 40th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron China Burma India Theater WWII
Thanks for your post and grateful for your father's service
I just received a FB message from Phil Bailey, Phil's Great Uncle is Colonel Albert Bailey. Colonel Bailey just Celebrated His 102nd Birthday Last Month!!! Happy Birthday, Colonel Bailey!!!
Judging by the different colors of the spinners, I think there are at least three different squadrons shown here. The lack of codes makes it hard to identify them, though.
Man, I would love to have that 1st one just as it was then, in my barn hanger. All gassed up of coarse. Thanks so much for not adding music.
That would be nice but I'd rather have one of the later ones. Longer range and faster. I like range. LOL, my VW Jetta will go over 630 miles on 14 gallons of Diesel.
edit: oh and I have to agree on the no music. Some folks put really obnoxious music on their videos and ruins it for a lot of us. To me the best music is those twin Allison V-1710s flying by at high speed. Corsairs have their whistle but the engine still sounds like a giant Harley. Boy did I piss off a biker one day when I asked him where the rest of the cylinders were on his radial engine. Figuring their 45 degree firing order they should have 6 more cylinders. Except single row radials are almost all odd numbers of cylinders.
If I remember Martin Caiden's book "Forked Tail Devil" right, he said that almost half the P-38 airframes were the F4 recon version. One of the stories he retold was of a P-38 sent on a recon mission over Japanese held territory. I don't remember if it was the F4 or not or whether he said, but the mission was crucial and the pilot kept taking pictures on the run they wanted him to cover as Zeros were climbing to intercept him. He stopped and headed for home after they shot out one of his engines and he put it in a shallow dive and full power to the other engine and proceeded to outrun the zeros. There's pictures of P-38s that survived horrific damage, some as bad as some of the B-17s that came home, never to fly again but brought home the pilots. The book is an awesome read, along with his other books. My favorite is "Thunderbolt" about Robert S. Johnson and his time in the P-47.
About 15% of P-38 were recon versions and maybe half were converted in the field. The photo recon version was about 10 to 15 mph faster than the fighter due to being lighter and not having the guns in the nose - which required airflow through the openings for cooling making it less streamlined. This unit has the special paint that was supposed to make it much harder to see in the sky.
Maybe so, I only have the one book I remember anything about the numbers and it's been a long time since I read it. Either way, it's still what I consider the best fighter we had in WW2. The only reason I know of that they went with the P-51s instead was cost per plane. I've talked to a P-51 pilot who was a friend of my dad, who was a crew chief and flew top gun turret in B-17. His friend flew with the long range tanks installed and he said they would burn the fuel in that tank before the drop tanks because it made the plane tail heavy. Flying a plane that's tail heavy is very scary at times and downright dangerous if you're not exceptionally skilled. That's one pilot's story. He could have been telling fairy tales for all I know but it sounds logical. I've experimented with CG on models and they get pretty touchy even toward the rearward limit on the plans. I like stable planes. I've had some that were so stable you could not make them spin. By moving the CG back I managed a half turn once on my trainer plane. A Carl Goldberg Eagle 63.
@@chrisbaker2903 Hi Chris! My Dad also flew the P-51! He loved the P-51, but loved the P-38 Lightning Better!!!
@@chrisbaker2903
Yeah. On the P51 and using the fuel in the internal long range tank first - yes - I've read that somewhere. Aircraft handled very badly with that tank full. It would fly but they used up that fuel as soon as they could. The drop tanks - if they wanted to get rid of them - they could. That internal long range tank - they couldn't, so they used it first.
.
@@chrisbaker2903 P38 best fighter? LOL Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. It's actually the very opposite - It was one of the POOREST performing planes in the fighter role.
P38 was a lousy fighter and was easily outmaneuvered by ANY, and I mean ANY enemy fighter. P38s were known for coming home with a lot of battle damage, cause that's what they were known for - running AWAY from battle. A P38's best chance of surviving a furball with enemy fighters was throttling up to the maximum and escaping the danger zone. That's the only thing it could do better - outrun enemy fighters.
It was otherwise a poor fighter and was mainly used in support roles such as reconnaissance and ground attack, it was also used as a long range bomber protector but fared poorly against enemy fighters, thus the P51 was developed to take that role.
You are ridiculous to even mention the decision to build more P51 as it being a cheaper plane to build instead of the P38. They are two different planes, with two very different places in air.
I just saw a cool video of how to get in and out of a P-38, 0:20 seconds in you can see an angular loop beneath the belly tank, that’s the bottom rung of a fold out ladder at back of the cockpit.😎
Beautiful to see these classic warbirds in original color.
Is this a photo recon bird. I didn't see any guns on it and it had two drop tanks for long range.
Hahaha. I love it. That crew chief wasn't going to let the steering damper prevent that mission!!
Brings back memories of what we did on C130s, B52s, A10s and even corporate jets to make the missions.
That guy was a great crewchief!!
LOL. And I'm being serious.
I've heard that called " brogan maintenance " . LOL
Today: "Stay safe" Back then: "Imma run between two spinning propellers on a moving aircraft to fix the landing gear with my foot."
Thanks for posting. 👍👍
It’s still unseen, my eyes were closed.
With 5 guns in the nose aimed straight out, as opposed to wing mounted guns aimed to converge at a certain point, the p38 hit exceptionally hard. If its guns caught you, it meant you probably got hit by 5 guns.
One of my two favorite warbirds of that era [ F4U Corsair and P 38 Lightning ]. Both of them exceptional in the air to air arena, and both feared by the enemy.
Don't forget the P-47. Shot down more enemy aircraft than any other in EU. Find the book Thunderbolt by Martin Caiden and learn about Robert S.Johnson, who shot down 28 German fighters in less than 11 months before being rotated back to the states to sell savings bonds. At that time he was the EU leading Ace.
I know they were fast, but I would've hated flying with a camera in the nose instead of four machine guns and a cannon!
Absolutely brilliant footage !!
I may be mistaken, but this looks like a photo recon version of the P38 designated the F5
I am a vet ,and thankful to all the vets from world war two ,they saved our country.
I wouldn't want to be the guy running in front to kick the front tire. What was that all about?
Technically not a P-38, but a F-4 photo recon bird.
Correct. No weapons seen.
F5
Still is a P-38, just one of the many variants. Designated F-4 or F-5
@@flyoverkid55 Correct, and if I'm doing nothing but taking pictures having some bang-bang in the nose would be a comfort.
@@danielburgess7785 Even when armed, a P-38's greatest asset was speed. A Lightning pilot out on his own (as PR pilots nearly always were) would be extremely foolish to enter an engagement with even a couple of Zekes or Oscars. Better to use your superior speed and get the hell out of there.
That's the version of the P-38 my father flew in the European theater.
I assume he was with 7th PRG at Mount Farm in Oxfordshire England?
Pat Hines - An old timer I used to work with flew unarmed Mosquitoes on Pathfinder missions over Germany, and on one occasion when a pair of Me262s tried to bounce him, he just went into a power dive and engaged in tight turns, until they ran low in fuel and headed for home. He crewed one of a pair of mosquitoes that went Stateside to do evaluation sorties and tests against the then new P38 - the RAF pilots showed off a bit, doing some 'tricks' that were considered too dangerous to do in P38s. Never-the-less the P38 was a well rated twin boomer.
How long and far could a p-38 fly with wind tanks, with drop tanks?
I've read that a P-38J pilot of the 318th F.G., 7th Air Force over the Pacific Ocean, in January 1945 flew a mission of 9 hours 32 minutes before running out of gas. He had to parachute over water before making it to his airstrip, but was later retrieved by friendly forces.
Saw this footage more than 20 years ago.
where did you see it?. as far as I know it was locked up at my dads house in Orlando I took it off of 8mm film. some of the film was so bad it could not be restore. I still have the original 8mm. from ww2
I made a mistake the film was 16mm.
I saw it at the Air Force Museum in Dayton when I was a teenager in 1974 or 1975. I was really into WW2 planes but had never seen a blue P-38 with no guns. I asked one of the staff about it and he explained the F-4 version. I know all gun camera films were property of the AAF, so there must be 2 copies of this film.
No guns. The recon versions had cameras not guns. Good cameras. Big expensive quality cameras.
I believe that P-38 had the HAZE BLUE paint.
What squadron?
wow, stunning paint scheme
Kodachrome oversaturated the Haze Blue.
awesome! love seeing the 38 in my favorite color 👍
Guys...watch out for those props!!
@Brad Hamilton You mean those "Hamilton Standard" prop's!? Are you related to the designer? If so, very cool!
the guys behind the guys. right on.
The way the props turn does not make sense.
Should be opposite on both engines , so there would be
less momentum when single engine.
The engineers originally tried two inward turning props, but they found that outward turning props gave better twin engine performance and stability for a gun platform.
Just an amazing! Footage!!!! Wow!
A peek back in time
Definitely a recon version. No 20mm cannons in the nose.
Awesome!!
wow the cones turned red for a second
IIRC this was called an F-5 or something like that....Was a photo-recon bird..painted blue....
Loved the blue camoflage. I'm more familiar with WW2 aircraft than ground vehicle's however I don't remember the small " duck like " car. I'm thinking this could be s captured Japanese vehicle put to use. What a runway and what bravery these young kids and men. Anybody know the vehicle. ? My father was in same fly class with Thomas McQuire Thomas father owned a Packard Dealership and on weekends they'd cruise San Antonio. Thomas loved to harass Lindberg as he out ranked him.
Question, The right engine turned C.W. and the left turned C.C.W..
Would it matter if the Right turned C.C.W. and the left C.W.?
To me it would seam to still balance out.
I know the British placed the same direction on both wings. Then complained of poor performance.
The P-38 prototype did in fact have props that turned inwards as seen from the top. This is best for single engine emergency operations as there is no "critical engine". However, the engineers found that by having both props turn outwards, they could get better twin engine performance and stability. A very surprising result, and a result that would be hard for engineers and pilots to accept or even contemplate. But to their credit they were open to wild ideas in their search for optimal performance.
I wonder what would happen if the 2 Alison V1710,s were replaced by 2 Merlin 1650's?
I believe this was tried without much difference in performance. The reason for the much better performance of the Merlin in the P51 over the Allison was due primarily to the two speed/two stage supercharger on the Merlin. I believe the P38 had a turbo supercharging system somewhat like the P47. Check out the channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
@@martinneukomm8697 Ok! I didn't know that. I'll look into this more. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I love aircraft from WW2 and Korea. My Uncle served as a MARINE in the Korean war as a MARINE 1st Marine Corps 3rd battalion told me that Marine F4U Corsairs ground attacks were conducted at such said low altitudes that they could see the pilots grinning faces! I was in awe of this. Thanks again for your time!
Lockheed ran a design study on replacing the Allison with the Merlin. First, the Merlin literally wouldn't fit, it is too long. Second, even with the turbocharger and associated exhaust and intercooler plumbing, the Allison is lighter. The Allison is more reliable. The Allison is more difficult to damage in combat, and rugged enough to survive more damage. The Allison makes more horsepower, especially above 22,000 feet, it maintains sea level horsepower to 29,000 feet. The Allison burns less fuel while still making more power.
The Merlin would have ruined the P-38.
What the P-38 needed was to have the Curtiss Electric props replaced with Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle props.
@@martinneukomm8697 The Merlin P-38 was only a study on paper. A QEC package was also discussed. But like what was already said, the Merlin would not fit. It would have required a retooling of the engine nacelles and landing gear geometry. The Air Material Command wasn't going to shut down the P-38 production line to pursue this idea.
that's an F-5.
sherwin williams blue.....
Must be a spy plane,
Not one gun in the nose...
recon version. No guns.
Yes, no guns. The beginning does say photographic mission.
Thanks for that tid-bit; no guns. I noticed that right after the pretty color. I thought is from an air show. :-)
Love the authentic footage! (Ugliest "38" ever but that's trivial)
If by ugly you mean the color...well, no. Its called haze blue and it was an attempt to make the craft invisible against the background sky. Worked pretty well too.
Kicking the nose gear to get it unstuck lol.
That's what I was thinking. Looked as if this was a common procedure between pilot and crewman for him to run up to the plane like that.
Apparently it's a f5
Is that a kubelvagen?
Warren McDonald ____ no.
The vehicle at about 0:50?? Looks like a miniature amphibious of some sort. Anyone recognize it?
@@dhkent55Ford GPA, I believe
painted haze blue
why did he stomp on the tire?
Tire stomping happens from 2:03
Possible sand locking up the brakes.
Pun Intended Good thought but brakes are only on the main wheels. Honestly can’t think of any reason for what he did there.
Yeah, I can't figure that out either. He obviously knew just what he was doing though. No hesitation. Looked like he'd done it before.
.
He was trying to get the steering damper to release so the pilot could steer the aircraft. If you watch it starts to turn then stops turning.
Great crew chief, wasn't going to let a stupid steering damper stop that mission.
Great to see a crew chief in action and what really goes on.
Stuka
Whirlwind
Is the only one?? Or there's more!??
F-5E Lightning
Chris Baker -
Gorgeous thing to look at - but the p38 had such a dreadful casualty rate it was withdrawn from European combat. In no way was it 'the greatest'!
Took an eternity to get from cruise to combat mode, early models would kill you if dived at the speed of a German fighter, but above all - no fighter with wing mounted engines can roll quick enough to dogfight (see Me 110).
ps. - the Mustang had vastly better fuel consumption hence huge range - That is why it took over from the Thunderbolt as bomber escort.
It wasn't withdrawn from the ETO. They just didn't bring on any more sqds. And they didn't do it because of the casualty rate but because one it had a cockpit heat problem and there were some parts of the turbosupercharger that kept freezing up.
Also once they saw how successful they were in the Pacific and with P47s and P51s arriving in numbers to the ETO, the choice was made.
A very dear late friend of mine, Royal Frey, former currater of the Air force museum flew P38s in late 44 before he was shot down by a FW 190D. The P38 In the museum is painted up as his aircraft.
Wow you say all that but do you know the number one American Ace flew a P-38? Richard bong
Utterly false. The WORST the P-38 EVER did early on was a 1.3:1 kill to loss ratio, counting ALL P-38 losses due to accidents, fuel starvation, navigation errors, and mechanical failures. The P-38 closed out its service with the 8th AF with a 3:1 kill to loss ratio. The P-38 outnumbered the P-51 in the 8th AF until May/June 1944, when it was replaced for cost and logistical reasons.
It remained in service with the 9th and 15th AF until the end of the war, and was the top scoring fighter there.
Looks like there is a ingrown hair in the film.
You won't see 'overhyped' color in my home movies c. 1967, just not real. Didn't know photoshop version of Kodak 'does it all' went back this far, bad enuf what they did to Z's Dallas . . . Oh, and those unedited WC photo evidence, too, no digitized anything, oh my . . .
Technically ----------------------- drivel, click bait at its worst.