PROOF DEPARTMENT
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND
EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
ON
TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38G TYPE AIRPLANE
AS COMPARED TO THE P-38F

3 May 1943

          1.    OBJECT:

                 To determine the comparitive difference between the P-38F and the P-38G airplanes.

          2.    INTRODUCTION:

                 This is a supplementary test initiated by the Chief of the Proof Department. It is a supplement to S. T. No. 4-42-3, dated 6 March 1943, this headquarters, entitled "Final Report on Tactical Suitability of the P-38F Type Aircraft."

          3.    Conclusions:     It is concluded that:

                 a.    All conclusions and recommendations applying to the P-38F, apply to the P-38G.

                 b.    Inasmuch as the general maneuverability of this aircraft is probably the lowest of any type of current fighter aircraft, and in view of the competition facing the P-38G in the European Theatre, all possible effort should be made to improve its rate of climb and high speed.

                 c.    The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180° in 360° circle) due to maneuver flaps.

                 d.    Buffeting was noticeable but at higher speeds and accelerations than in the P-38F.

                 e.    The P-38G will outzoom the P-38F.

                 f.    The P-38G will hold its altitude in turns at thirty-five-thousand (35,000) feet, whereas the P-38F loses altitude.

                 g.    The P-38G holds its advantages over the P-38F at all altitudes.

                 h.    The lack of sufficient intercooling holds down the performance of the P-38G as well as the P-38F.

          4.    RECOMMENDATIONS:     It is recommended that:

                         The same recommendations applying to the P-38F, apply to the P-38G.

          5.    RECORD OF TEST:

                 This test was conducted in accordance with the procedure set forth in "Program for testing the Tactical Suitability of Service Aircraft," this headquarters, dated 9 July 1942, a copy of which is attached as Inclosure No. 1.

          6.    DISCUSSION:

                 a.    Performance.

(1)    Speed -approximately the same as the P-38F. (See Inclosure No. 2).
 
(2)    Rate of Climb - approximately the same as the P-38F. (See Inclosure No. 2).
 
(3)    Range - approximately the same as the P-38F.
 
(4)    Armament - same as P-38F.
 
(5)    Gas capacity - same as the P-38F.
 
(6)    Allowable horsepower - same as P-38F.
 
(7)    At twenty-five-thousand (25,000) feet the P-38G stalled in a turn at an IAS of about 110 mph with maneuver flaps extended. The P-38F stalled at about 145 mph IAS.

                 b.    Differences in structure.

(1)    Canopy on P-38G folds back instead of to one side as on the P-38F.

(NOTE: The canopy on the P-38G, although an improvement over that of the P-38F, needs further development. Two (2) canopies unexplainably buckled at this station, endangering the life of the pilots.)

          7.    INCLOSURES:

                 Inclosure No. 1 - Test Program.
                 Inclosure No. 2 - Speeds.
                 Inclosure No. 3 - Unsatisfactory Report on Canopy Failure.
 

Main    P-38 Performance