They did at least 5 field converaions in WWII to TP-51C. One is still flying with the Collings Foundation of Stowe, MA (best known for operation the last flying B-24 and a B-17G painted as Nine-O-Nine of the 323rd BS, 91 BG, 1 BD, 8th AF) named "Betty Jane." Your point still stands, though. It was never standard practice to train them in two-seat Mustangs.it seemed never to occur to anybody a TP-51 might be a good idea...
Ch.11a - ADDENDUM regarding OTL Encounter of 12/27/42
I've been doing more research and discovered a more accurate account of the fighting over Buna on 12/27/42. I may go back and make some changes to it to better reflect what actually happened. Basically, the Artistic License I took in describing the order of battle for the 39th was based on vague and conflicting accounts but I have now found a reference with the official account from the daily log of the 39th which clarifies things. What actually happened was that Lynch and his flight of Bong, Sparks (I had misspelled the name), and Mangus were alone at the beginning of the fight and were "Red Flight" not blue. They accounted for a total of seven E/A destroyed between them (Lynch=2, Bong=2, Sparks=1, Mangus=2) then Eason showed up with White Flight and Gallup with Yellow Flight who between them got another six. Whether or not the P-40's actually showed up is still up in the air but I think it reasonable to assume they did.
What I liked about the way I wrote it was that I was able to show Lynch's methodical and calm approach to air combat focusing on tactics and organizing his forces. Any opinions from the gallery on whether I re-write or keep it as-is and wave it off as butterflies?
The 39th Combat Diary said:
What I liked about the way I wrote it was that I was able to show Lynch's methodical and calm approach to air combat focusing on tactics and organizing his forces. Any opinions from the gallery on whether I re-write or keep it as-is and wave it off as butterflies?
Last edited:
Keep it, cause butterflies flapping their wings create hose hurricanes you know.
I think you should keep it as is. Other then fixing any spelling or minor errors it's not inaccurate and you made the main point about Captain Lynch's command method. And it is an ATL after all. There's bound to be some differences appearing. For example with the NACA P-38s faster climb and cruise speed the 39th FS maybe arrives a little earlier on the scene.
Yeah, it's strange Lockheed couldn't do it... Whoever the 2d source turns out to be might end up working a little magic. (Maybe the absence of jet dreams does the trick? Or maybe they just need to hire Ed Heinemann.
)No, I'm not counting that. (I've seen pix of some 2-place P-39s, too, tho IDK if those are legit or kitbashes.) I was thinking of the Sovs & their 2-seaters (I-153s?), which were production types. A 2-seat TP-38 makes eminent sense, especially if there's already an P-38 NF in the works.
Leave it. It's not really material, & Shadow Knight's right, butterflies could easily account for it (including the presence of P-40s when OTL they might've stayed home.
) It's when you mistakenly give the Japanese F4Hs, you have a problem. (If it was A6Hs or something, I might just think IJN procurement has gotten a gust of wind, when it was just a misprint.)A 2-seat TP-38 makes eminent sense, especially if there's already an P-38 NF in the works.
Yes I agree that a TP-38 would improve the training of low-time cadets straight from the AT-6 and also conversion training for experienced fighter pilots. Particularly how to promptly and correctly deal with an engine failure on take-off as that was a real potential killer in the P-38. Otherwise the P-38 was, according to its' pilots, an easy, nice handling and forgiving plane to fly although rather complex.
The thing is with everybody screaming for more P-38s I don't think that enough planes would have been diverted for conversion to the TP-38 type to provide an adequate number (500 each year?) to
have any useful impact on the training of many thousands of pilots. They are really going to need more production someway somehow.
But that is what the Curtiss-Wright AT-9 Jeep was for. To introduce pilots to a hot little twin with somewhat deliberately designed in nasty flight characteristics. The P-38 was a more forgiving airplane than the AT-9. And if the cadets crack it up at least the AT-9 is also a lot cheaper than a P-38.
I wonder how useful the AT-9 would have been for teaching engine out on take-off recovery techniques for P-38 trainees? You wouldn't experience the P-38s' large asymmetrical thrust with an engine out. Also the AT-9 didn't have featherable propellers which is not great for training proper responses to a engine failure.
Yep, a TP-38 would be ideal if you could just get enough of them to train the flood of new pilots.
Yes I agree that a TP-38 would improve the training of low-time cadets straight from the AT-6 and also conversion training for experienced fighter pilots. Particularly how to promptly and correctly deal with an engine failure on take-off as that was a real potential killer in the P-38. Otherwise the P-38 was, according to its' pilots, an easy, nice handling and forgiving plane to fly although rather complex.
The thing is with everybody screaming for more P-38s I don't think that enough planes would have been diverted for conversion to the TP-38 type to provide an adequate number (500 each year?) to
have any useful impact on the training of many thousands of pilots. They are really going to need more production someway somehow.
But that is what the Curtiss-Wright AT-9 Jeep was for. To introduce pilots to a hot little twin with somewhat deliberately designed in nasty flight characteristics. The P-38 was a more forgiving airplane than the AT-9. And if the cadets crack it up at least the AT-9 is also a lot cheaper than a P-38.
I wonder how useful the AT-9 would have been for teaching engine out on take-off recovery techniques for P-38 trainees? You wouldn't experience the P-38s' large asymmetrical thrust with an engine out. Also the AT-9 didn't have featherable propellers which is not great for training proper responses to a engine failure.
Yep, a TP-38 would be ideal if you could just get enough of them to train the flood of new pilots.
I have been keeping the idea of a TP-38 in the back of my mind from the outset. You landed on the problem pretty well though: with the high demand for Lightnings feom the front how many could be spared for TP conversion? You really only need a couple TP-38's per training unit...really about 1 per instructor pilot because that is all you'd be able to fly simultaneously anyway so your 500 would be more than would be needed most likely. Really just a few score would be plenty. I might have a source for these but need to get a second line up first, then will need other involvement to design and build the modifications. I have some possible ideas for this which we will begin to see later in 1943.
Last edited:
What if you had an east coast and west coast P-38 training squadron? The East coast squadron would feed pilots to the ETO and MTO. It would emphasize high altitude flying. Once you get pilots finishing their combat tours in England and Italy they would teach tactics that work against the Luftwaffe. The west coast training squadron focuses on lower altitude flying and perhaps a lot of over water navigation. Naturally Pacific vets teach rookie pilots to fly against the Japanese.
Wouldn't there be "P-38 streams" at the AAF training schools, making this unnecessary? Or do you mean strictly for ACM? In which case, I'm wondering how good AAF ACM training was, at that time. I have the sense it was reasonably good, tho not up to FWS standards (& certainly no *DACT).
That said, would AAF institute a specialized P-38 ACM syllabus? I have my doubts.
I do agree, the number of TP-38s required shouldn't be outrageously high--given AAF recognizes the need, which IMO is the big hurdle.
I am thinking the training squadrons would be more of a pre-deployment/advanced flight school for replacement pilots. After completing basic P-38 training the AAF would identify which pilots are headed to which theater. While waiting for transportation overseas the pilots would get familar with handling the P-38 in the South Pacific or over Germany. Because the P-38 is a little more complicated I think you need to cram in more training so that things like switching fuel tanks becomes muscle memory.
Maybe this training can be added into the regular training pipeline. As far as the AAF creating a P-38 ACM course I guess the question does come up why not create a P-47 and P-51 ACM course as well.
Issues with the absence of the TP-38 aside, ACM school in the later portions of WWII was really handled in Theater usually at the replacement Depots under the guise of "Theater Indoctrination." For the 8th AF this was at Doxhill, England. The trouble is that they never added this to the SOP for bringing new P-38 pilots on to the line, it was for P-51 pilots only. With an increased number of P-38 units in ATL and hopefully the increased number experienced pilots surviving out their first tour I can only hope the AAF gets the hint and institutes this for Lighting Squadrons in all theaters of Operation. Townsville, Oz and surrounding airfields for the SWPA, Doxhill for N/W Europe, maybe some base in W.Algeria and later in Sicily for MTO. Have all pilots arriving to the theater, whether as part of the Replacement Training Unit or an Operational Training Unit, spend a few weeks at the Theater Indoctrination Center where they will learn the essentials of combat and tactics for the theater from experienced in-theater pilots before being shipped out to the front for their operational rotation.
I couldn't agree more. It also brings the added benefit of simply the fact of these pilots are getting some more flight hours in their complex airplane while they're practising this theatre relevant training. This would improve these pilots ability to react correctly and automatically to the threats they will encounter when they are sent into combat for the first time for most of them.
GunsCarsGuitars
Banned
There is no substitute for realistic training. These OTUs would be well worth the costs involved.
I'm thinking that adds a layer of bureaucracy for nothing. I'd guess, if AAF was going to do it, they'd add a feature or class or something to an existing program, rather than write up an entirely new one.
That sounds very like what I image would happen anyhow, with maybe extensions to stays at "TI" or adding some classes. Based on fragmentary knowledge of the training in this era, I'd guess what there was didn't go much beyond some classroom discussion & bull sessions afterward; actual dogfighting seems improbable. That being true, getting more hours in type might be hoping for too much. (I'm picturing a few days' stay, so maybe one or two flights a day, tops, so maybe 6-10hr in the seat for the duration, & that's probably generous.)
As for TP-38s, there'd have to be a few clapped-out P-38s around somewhere, wouldn't there? It's not like they're going into action...
Germans did it, so did the Soviets, and Supermarine did it with Spitfire, Curtiss with P-40 and P-47, Bell with P-39. Curiously enough - USN birds didn't took part in this.