This puzzles me. Usually, the P-38 is considered slower than a P-51, won't turn as tightly, won't roll as well, and can't climb or dive as well. Uses more fuel, too.

So, how do you figure? Will the LO version do something better than a Mustang? Really asking because I want to learn, not being mean.

For what it's worth, Royal Navy Captain Eric Browne was a test pilot who flew about all Allied and Axis planes of WW II. He wrote that if his life was at risk in a dogfight, he'd rather be in a Spitfire MK XIV than any other WWII fighter, but he admired the P-51D/Mustang IV and the FW-190 greatly.

He was a veteran of aerial combat over Europe, and once had a hairy afternoon flying a Spitfire IX against an equivalent FW-190. He had the advantage in the horizontal, and the German had the vertical advantage. Eventually, neither got the advantage on the other and they broke off and parted ways. Browne had great respect for the Focke-Wulf, especially for its rate of roll. That's one advantage that it had over the Spitfire.

I do know that enemy pilots feared the Mustang greatly, although some regarded the P-38 with disdain. All those who wrote that were German, as far as I know. The Jap pilots feared the Lightning.

Unlike with the German planes, the P-38 could outdive the Japs, and the late P-38's with enhanced flaps could actually turn inside a Zero, a pretty significant accomplishment. It was, of course, much faster than most Japanese fighters. I think that only the Ki-100 might equal it on speed. Maybe the George 12. I'd have to check specs. The Frank was about 25 miles slower.

T-Star