# Best Pacific Fighter?



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

What was the best fighter used in the Pacific theatre during WW2?

The list has been chosen by the good members of the site 8)

I say P-38 

Discuss


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 14, 2004)

None of those, the N1K2 Shiden-Kai is the best...



Now, I'm just being complicated..

Gotta go with the Shiden.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 14, 2004)

I think it was the Corsair.
Early models were a bitch to start, and it was tricky to land on carriers, but with improvements and experience that was dealt with.
Yeah, that fighter rocked!   
It was a decent ground pounder, too.

Plus, it just plain looked cool!


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 14, 2004)

Question what hapened to the P-47 or the P-51? they were both relativly new to the war but they did make an impression. And the thunderbolts even flue off carriers

For me P-38 or P-40. They were both around a long time were in every battle and served with all nations. That P-40 just never gave up even when it was getting out classed. The P-40P and Q were looking really nice!

C.C thanks for the pole we need more talk bout the Pacific!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 14, 2004)

I have to go with GrG and say it was the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai, Allied Code Name: "George"......

The plane was just unreal in its flight performance, and when American test pilots first flew it, the couldnt compare anything in the US arsenal to it, because there was nothing we had that was close.....

A plane flown by the best Japanese pilots they had left......

Four wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon (N1K1-Ja, N1K1-Jb, N1K1-Jc, N1K2-J, N1K2-Ja and N1K2-K)....
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,990 hp for take-off, 1,825 hp at 1,750 m and 1,625 hp at 6,100 m, driving a four-blade metal propeller (production N1K1-J, N1K2-J, N1K2-K, N1K3-J and N1K3-A)....

The Shiden Kai was to become the best all-round fighter to be operational in the Pacific theatre.... It was fast, powerful, and maneuverable, and was well-armed and armored...... In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter, even the later models of the P-51D Mustang which began to appear over Japan in the spring of 1945......
In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier...... 

The Shiden Kai had its center of gravity just alittle too far aft, and to correct this problem the N1K3-J Shiden Kai 1 Model 31 was built, which had the Homare 21 engine moved forward six inches..... This freed up enough space to permit two 13.2-mm machine guns to be fitted in the engine cowling..... Two prototypes were built at Himeji, but this model was never put into production....

Only 415 production examples of the outstanding N1K2-J fighter were built, owing primarily to construction snags and delays resulting from the continuous B-29 raids on the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war..... With the exception of Kawanishi's Naruo and Himeji plants, the other companies involved in the production pool were late in getting started and delivered only a token number of machines before the war ended.....

It is fortunate for the Allies that this outstanding aircraft was not available in greater quantity.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 16, 2004)

Well Said, the N1K2 was very good, fast and was one of the few Japonese fighters that has the armor it really needed. 

I agree it was equill to the Allied fighters whin in quallity hands. But the pilot pool had been all used up. Also The Allies were sailing out the F7F and F8F as well as a few other fighters a liitle more off. 

But the Shiden-Kai should have been in production a year to 18 months before it was. 

What to you all think about the A7M? It had problums but promis!


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 17, 2004)

In the hands of an experienced pilot, every plane is a match,i heard a story thet a p-36 in perl harbor, shot down a zero, but i cant say the plane is not importent.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand?


Many P-36's (ok, not that much) shot down Zeroes, serving with Holland in the Dutch East Indies...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

Thank god it wasnt a P-26 

Yay the P-38 is winning


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

dude you realise the wildcat's missing from the poll??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

Yeah but the Hellcat was better than the Wildcat...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 17, 2004)

The hellcat might be better, but it was the wildcat that was used from day one to the end. Flew off the CVEs and did all the hard work. It is like saying the B-29 was better then the B-24, yes, but with out the b-24s the B-29s would not be able to have had all that glory.

The wildcat was a strong little fighter that flew with the USN and RAA. But as CC said before he had to draw a line and could only add a few picks. So write in slot for the F4F


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

How much service, if any, did the F7F and F8F see during the war and were they successful?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 19, 2004)

The F7F, was in theater and was being used by a few Marine units. The F8F Bearcat was still in the states and I think was set for an early 1946 deployment. Both would have played rolls in the invasions to come. But as for the Summer of 1945 they were just late. 

Grumman had a lot invested in the two projects and the F7F-3 was the first twin engine carrier qualified plane! We had some good conversations about the Tigercat earlier on the forum. I can try to find it if you want.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

and due to their lack of combat i wouldn't have put them in the poll if they came late in the war anyway.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

I know, me neither, but the both look pretty good so I thought id give em a mention.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

i still can't believe you didn't put the wildcat in the poll.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

The fact that the shiitass P-40 got more votes than the N1K2 Shiden makes this poll useless.... There is no way u can even compare those 2 airframes, let alone say the P-40 was better.....

Bah on this poll......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

i haven't actually voted yet *suprise suprise* but do you think people are just voting for their favourite??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

I did. Corsair all the way, baby! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

So people like YOU are the reason the beloved P-38 isnt winning anymore...I poo on your heads from a great height....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

I'll use an umbrella!

Someone actually voted for the Ki-43.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Poor deprived person


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I feel the Corsair was a better fighter than the P-38, but I think the Shiden was better than the Corsair....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

I dont think the Shiden done enough to be recognised as the best...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

The Japs could've achieved alot more, if their high command hadn't been so over confident in the Zero.
The late war saw some excellent Japanese designs beginning to see the light of day, but unfortunately (for them) it was too late.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

The Ki-84 and Ki-100 looked pretty promising.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

> I dont think the Shiden done enough to be recognised as the best...


The question is BEST PACIFIC FIGHTER, not which fighter did more than the other....

American test pilots who had the great opportunity to fly a captured Shiden said that it outperformed anything else the US had in the air, and had it been built earlier, would have posed serious, SERIOUS problems for the Allies in the Pacific... That right there convinces me....

Also, my Grandfather thought that the Shiden was the best thing to fly the skies in combat over the Pacific, and he fought against them..... And he flew Corsairs....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

Wow. I'm posting on the same forums as the grandson of a Corsair ace!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Aint that big of a deal.. Try being online with Adolf Gallands grandson.. Now that would be impressive.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Its probably not such a big deal to you cos youve known it pretty much all your life...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I'd be more impressed that I was online with a former Navy SEAL than being online with a grandson of a Ace with only 8 kills...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

True enough, but it's still interesting. That's all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

U know that I am a former SEAL team member right??? 

I am glad that u find the situation interesting.... Hopefully u will stay interested and continue to post Nonskim.. Uve got some good knowledge as well that I enjoy reading...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

Actually, I _didn't_ know that. 

(note to self: do not slam US Navy SEALs  )


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Hehe......

I have lead a rather busy and exciting life, and I have accomplished many things..... College Lacrosse, Semi-Pro Hockey, Navy SEALs, Father, First Rate American Assshole.....

As far as slamming the SEALs, just remember, never EVER go hunting with us... We dont play fair....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Id love to get my friends together and take on the SAS or SEALS at Paintballing...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I play paintball 2-3 times a month.... 


> and take on the SAS or SEALS at Paintballing...


It wouldnt last very long, depending on the terrain for said match... In the woods or jungle, ull get ur ass handed to u.. In speedball with obstacles, it is alittle more even sided, but ud still get beat...

My son plays on a paintball team with his pals that I play and train with... They are just about unbeatable now.... Tactics are something kids never take advantage of....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)

Me and my friend are very good tacticians, we discussed how we'd go about it the other day...I believe that a load of my pals have gone painballing today, as usual I wasnt invited...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 21, 2004)

Some pals!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Better find some new ones there buddy.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)

Finding friends is hard in janner country...sorry I mean Cornwall...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Better to have no friends than Arseholes like those....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)

Hehe...I suppose


----------



## germanace (Nov 21, 2004)

hell i like all of them


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Dont we all, but unfortunatly, for the purpose of this poll, u have to pick what u feel is the best.....


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 22, 2004)

I voted for the A6M2 Zero, which has to be the best dog-fighter in any theatre. But I consider the best Japanese plane to be the Nakajima Ki-84 Frank.







Source: http://images.google.co.nz/images?q=ki-84+frank&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search







http://www.cnc-modell.de/cnc/jpeg/ki-84/ki-84_01.jpg

Specifications 

Model Nakajima Ki-84 1C 

Engine 1 x Nakajima Homare Ha-45 II
1,900hp 18 cylinder radial 

Max. Speed 427 mph 687.18 Km/h 
Max. Range 1,815 Mls 2,920 Km 
Empty Weight 5,684 lbs 2,680 Kg 
Loaded Weight 8,267 lbs 3,750 Kg 

Span 36 / 10.5 Ft/in 11.24 m 
Length 32 / 6.5 Ft/in 9.92 m 
Height 11 / 1.25 Ft/in 3.38 m 

Armament 2 x 20mm cannon. 
2 x 30mm cannon
2 x 550lb (250kg) bombs 

Notes The Ki-84 entered combat over China in the summer of 1944.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 22, 2004)

Ya know, the Ic actually had four 30mm's, especially for countering the B-29s...


The Ib was the model armed with four 20mm's, and the Ia had two 7.92mm and two 20mm...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

I love the Ki-84...Id put it up there with the 190D and P-38 for one of the best looking planes of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I would have to go with the Corsair. It is was a great plane. Great performance, great fire power and looked great. It was so good it was used for quite some time after the war including the Korean War. Just a great plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Also a Japanese plane that I always was facinated with and my might be confusing its name with another but I think it was called the Raiden. I dont know much about either, if anyone has some info on it, it would be a big help.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

The Raiden was a late commer. If you have a chance while online a quick surch will give you some good stuff. I wil look a little and let you know.

As for the poll, i think that people are voting for what they like the best, but also the Pacific aircraft are on the whole not as wellknown as the one in Europe. The A6M5 was the last great Zero model. The Zero would have been even better if the IJN would have worked on it sooner. They had the Aircraft to really take the fight to the USAAC, but all that B-29 bombing and fighter straffing took its toll. Having near rould the clock bomb raids breaks people down, that is unless you are the English, who just soe how kept on going. 

The Ki-100 was an offshute when the new inline engine was not ready intime. So add the radial; and the proformance was crazy great! But I think that the US designers wou;ld have been able to combat them, or just bomb them silly!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I think that the zero was by far the pacific aircraft that for me stands out the most. Not that I think it was the best, I by far dont think it was but when I think of the pacific that is the aircraft I think of. It and the Hellcat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

I just think of P-38's and zeros.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

The Hellcat I think made more of an impact though than the P-38 and the Dauntless was definatly the workhorse of the Pacific sinking so many ships for the allies.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

But what if the P-38 wasnt there? I cant think of any other plane that could replace it with an equal or better effect


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

The P-51 was also used in the Pacific and I beleive that it would it have been more extensivly used in place of the P-38


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Why is the Ki-84 not included in this poll? And where is the P-47N?

----

F4U-4 and P-47N were by far the best fighters of the PTO! What else could compete with these 460 mph class fighters?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> The Raiden was a late commer. If you have a chance while online a quick surch will give you some good stuff. I wil look a little and let you know.
> 
> As for the poll, i think that people are voting for what they like the best, but also the Pacific aircraft are on the whole not as wellknown as the one in Europe. The A6M5 was the last great Zero model. The Zero would have been even better if the IJN would have worked on it sooner. They had the Aircraft to really take the fight to the USAAC, but all that B-29 bombing and fighter straffing took its toll. Having near rould the clock bomb raids breaks people down, that is unless you are the English, who just soe how kept on going.
> 
> The Ki-100 was an offshute when the new inline engine was not ready intime. So add the radial; and the proformance was crazy great! But I think that the US designers would have been able to combat them, or just bomb them silly!!



The J2M Raiden (Jack) was a good design, but suffered from flawed production. It was initially designed by the same man who designed the Zero, but he suffered a nervous breakdown and was retired and the project went to hell. I personally think that when the landing gear started collapsing on take off from airspeeds of about 100 mph he made some disparaging comments that got him put away. Quality issues killed this plane, though a few pilots did manage to do well in it.

The Ki-84 Hayate (Frank) is the Japanese plane that is missing from this poll. It started entering combat in mid-late '44, and something like 2500 were delivered, making it one of the more numorous Japanese fighter designs, so it's a legitimate contender. The were seen in a variety of major battles, including Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and over the Philapines and Korea. In many ways the Frank was a great airplane, however it suffered from poor engines - the Japanese just could not build a 2000 HP class engine. None-the-less with a top speed somewhere in the 405-430 range it was a formidable enemy.

The Zero was flawed. While it was fast, it handled poorly at high speeds. Much above 250 indicated speed and almost all aileron control was lost, and stick forces became excessive. Once the Zero was found in the alutians, restored, and tested, the future of the zero was cooked. US pilots knew it could not turn or roll to the right at speed, and so they were able to sit on this turn during an attack, or use a right turn to evade when on defense. Furthermore, the Zero was a difficult plane to manufacture, requiring many hours of skilled labor due to its counter stressed frame design. This also made it very vulnerable, as damage to this structure easily destroyed its integrity and caused it to fold up. Poor guns and gunsights also hampered its effectiveness. Use of bottled O2 rather than an O2 generator also made all IJN planes extremely vulnerable (IJA planes used O2 generators). The Zero's biggest asset was its tremendous range, and in the first year of the war it was a dangerous foe, but by the battle of the Coral Sea, US pilots knew its flaws and it's day was done.

The KI-100 was not fast enough to contend with the P-38, P-51, P-47, or the Corsair. It would however have been a very good matchup against a Hellcat!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

I agree the P-47 should be in the poll but what kind of impact did it make. I still think the biggest impact was made by the Hellcat and the Dauntless.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

I only put the ones in that made a real impact - The P-47 and Ki-84 were good planes but the Ki-84 was not as good as the Shiden and the P-47 wasnt really used in the PTO as much or with as much effect as it was in the ETO (I think)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

The P-47 was a great plane none the less.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

Yup, theres no denying that fact.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> I only put the ones in that made a real impact - The P-47 and Ki-84 were good planes but the Ki-84 was not as good as the Shiden and the P-47 wasnt really used in the PTO as much or with as much effect as it was in the ETO (I think)



Why do you think the "Frank" was not as good as the "George"? Below is a comparison of the first combat model of the Frank with the 2nd generation George (low wing, improved engine, etc...):

Nakajima Ki-84-1a "Frank" -
Maximum Speed: 392 mph at 20,080 feet (6,120 meters)
Cruising Speed: 277 mph (no altitude figure available)
Service Cieling: 34,450 feet (10,500 meters)
Climb: 5 mins 54 seconds to 16,400 feet (5000 meters)
Range: 1347 miles
Armament: 2 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns in the nose and 2 x Ho-5 20mm cannon in the wings.
Bombload: 2 x 550 lbs bombs
Production Numbers: 3514 total (1670 delivered in 1944, probably all Ki-84-1a's and maybe a few -1b's)

Kawanishi N1K2 "George" -
Maximum Speed: 369 mph @ 18,373 feet (5,600 meters)
Cruising Speed: 230 mph @ 6,562 feet (2,000 meters)
Service Cieling: 35,300 feet (10,760 meters)
Climb: 7 mins 22 secs to 19685 feet (6,000 meters)
Range: 1069 miles
Armament: 4 x Type 99-II mod 3 20mm cannon in the wings
Bombload: 2 x 550 lbs bombs (a special model could carry 4 x 550 lbs bombs, but its performance was lower).
Production numbers: ~410 (note: 1435 N1K's were built, about 1000 were the earlier N1K1 variant, with mid fuselage wing and inferior performance). 

As you can see, the first combat model of the Ki-84 "Frank" is superior to the second generation N1K2 "George" in every catagory except service cieling, and even there it's not that much inferior. Both planes suffered mechanical problems, the Frank probably less so than the George. The George's Type 99-II-3 20mm cannon hit a bit harder, but the RoF is significantly lower than that of the Ho-5, making the 2 x 20mm of the Frank have about the volume of fire of 3 of the George's 20mm.

Improvments in the Ki-84 "Frank" resulted in the -1b model armed with 4 x Ho-5 20mm cannon (2 in the nose, 2 in the wings) and improved performance (top speed ~409 mph). This was followed by the Ki-84-II model, which utilized more wood in the construction (Japan was suffering shortages of alluminum and steel by this point) which had a top speed of 416 mph. In each rendition (I and II generations) there were the C versions which sported the Ho-155 30mm cannon - it is unknown if this version ever actually saw combat or not. The "Frank" also sported some of the best armor of any Japanese fighter, including a 13mm plate protecting the pilot, which is about the thickest plate I've seen on any WWII fighter.

To say the Frank did not have an impact is totally false. This was the most feared Japanese fighter for the Allied pilots at Okinawa and those fighting over Korea. There was a saying at the Okinawa USAAF field for when they spotted a fast moving fighter at high altituded (20k+), "Forget it, it's a Frank" because the P-51 could not be scrambled for a successful intercept, if they were not already up and patrolling, there was no point in launching them.

Finally, the production numbers show that the Frank was far more significant than the George. The George was the best IJN fighter of WWII, the Frank was the best IJA fighter of WWII, but the Frank had more impact.

If you're going to have a poll about "The best WWII PTO fighter", and you are going to include any Japanese planes as choices, the Ki-84 "Frank" has to be included!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree the P-47 should be in the poll but what kind of impact did it make. I still think the biggest impact was made by the Hellcat and the Dauntless.



Sure, these were Navy planes, and they got the glory because they won the carrier battles which happened before the Air Force really got into the PTO. But the P-51, and P-47 played a signficant roll in the last year to 18 months of the war, especially over Burma, China, and Korea - areas vital to the Japanese war machine.

The poll question is "best" not "most significant" fighter in the PTO right? So these planes, which were there and saw combat, should be included.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Well then you make the polls and you can put them in there okay, dont worry cheddar I think the poll is alright.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Thanks 8)

You cant go on how good a plane is by stats, just look at the He-162, good on paper but a pile of smouldering shit in the sky


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

smouldering being the right word given it's a wodden jet plane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Thats true it was made out of wood but so were a lot of the jet aircraft. The Ho-229 was the same.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Wasnt that mainly due to lack of resources though?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 24, 2004)

Stealth, weight, materials, damage resistance...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

But also due to lack of resources yes?

(PS: post more - I wanna make it to 6000 tonight!)


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Thanks 8)
> 
> You cant go on how good a plane is by stats, just look at the He-162, good on paper but a pile of smouldering s**t in the sky



The Frank was an excellent plane. Most sources will agree it was the best operational Japanese fighter, and the most significant or the last year of the war as well.

I'm just presenting info Chedder. I'll make some polls when I'm caught up on this board. 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> But also due to lack of resources yes?
> 
> (PS: post more - I wanna make it to 6000 tonight!)



Yeh, that's why I mentioned materials...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Didnt see that bit 

RG, I have read many sources thast say the Shiden was the best Jap fighter...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

It was mostly do to recourses, there was more abundant timber than anything else for the Germans.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Although it has to be the worst material possible for use on a jet.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Didnt see that bit
> 
> RG, I have read many sources thast say the Shiden was the best Jap fighter...



The George was probably the best IJN fighter. The Frank was the best IJA fighter. Search on the Ki-84 Frank and read for yourself.

BTW: Read Sabaru Sakia's comments on the George, he thought it was a pile of crap.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah I would not want to build a jet out of wood but I guess in war time you do what you have to.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Looks like this poll is stabilizing a bit now. Im surprised the Hellcat doesnt have more votes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah me too, it was a good aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 26, 2004)

It was the first aircraft to defeat the Zero in all areas: manoverability, armor (what didn't?), speed, armament, range...


Who said this?

Why, none other than the Zero's designer...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Looks like this poll is stabilizing a bit now. Im surprised the Hellcat doesnt have more votes.



The Hellcat was made to defeat the Zero, which it did very well. It was tough and it was easy to fly from carriers, but it was not a match for the F4U or the P-51 or even the Frank or George.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 26, 2004)

Lunitic, nice to see you. When we talk of Aircraft and have left off the P-47 or feel that the P-38 lost the glory to the F4F or F6F please remember that there were US aircraft fighting in India, Burma and China even before 1941. That yes they were mostly P-40s, but the AVG did have P-47 and P-51s latter in the war. As for the IJA they were fighting in China and in support of operations aginst Port Morsby. So please remember that the Pacific was not just the big carrier battles! 

P-47s flew off carriers in support of Sipian and were very well liked.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 26, 2004)

I say the N1J , it was quite strong , and had some good armament , in the form of 4 20mm's ( I think ) . it was originally a floatplane i think but they desided it was better as a fighter .


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> I say the N1J , it was quite strong , and had some good armament , in the form of 4 20mm's ( I think ) . it was originally a floatplane i think but they desided it was better as a fighter .



Those 4 x 20mm's were powerful, but fired slow at 490 rpm. The Army's Ho-5 however, fired a smaller round but at a high Rof of ~800 rpm.

type round prj. wt RoF mv ke/s
Ho-5 (Type 2) 20 x 94 96 750-850 715 43.0
Type 99-2 20 x 101RB 128 490 750 30.7 

From the data above you can see that the Army's Ho-5 was probably the better gun, certainly for fighter combat. It's 96 gram round does not hit quite as hard, but it put out about 2/3rds more volume of fire. Comparing the George's 4 x Type 99-II's to the Frank Ib's 4 x Ho-5's, this is a huge difference. The George would put out 32 rounds per second, the Frank would put out about 53 rounds per second.

But the real issue is the planes themselves. All the info we have from Allied pilots says the Frank was the most feared Japanese fighter of the late Pacific war. And there were a lot more Franks built than George's.

Oh, and even as a float plane the George was always a "fighter".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

The Hellcat was in my opinion the best all around Carrier born fighter of the war, but the Corsair was by far the best. Well atleast in my opionion.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> It was the first aircraft to defeat the Zero in all areas: manoverability, armor (what didn't?), speed, armament, range...
> 
> 
> Who said this?
> ...



Was it really more manoeverable? I thought the Zero was the most manoeverable plane of the war...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I may be wrong but I think the zero was more maneuverable but the armor of the hellcat allowed it to beat out the zero.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah that would sound more like it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Like I said though I may be wrong, I do not know much about the pacific theatre aircraft.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

The Zero was very manuverable - at about 180 IAS. By 225 it was getting very stiff, by 250 it was a total dog.

Starting with the F6F, US fighters were designed to simply fly faster than the Zero could be competitive. The F6F was simply designed to fight at speeds of 250-275 IAS, which was sufficient to ensure it had all the advantages over the Zero. All the Zero could do was turn, and in doing so it lost speed and energy, giving even more advantage to the enemy who would simply zoom off and come around for another high speed pass. The Zero's were pretty much helpless as long as the Allied pilot did not actually slow down and try to turn with them and stay on their six.

The F4U was a carrier plane, it just took a while (and some innovation by the Brits) to develop the techniques needed to use it effectively as such. By late 1944, the Corsairs were operating off Carriers quite effectively.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

I was gonna say about the Zero only really manouvering at low speeds, which is why you never get into a low level turning dogfight with one, you wont win..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Unless you happen to be called Dick Bong and you're in a P-38L...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

dude your name makes do difference ot a dogfight, if anything the extra paint used to paint your name on the side of a plane only slows you down...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

God, and im supposed to be the think one, you really dont see what im getting at do you...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 27, 2004)

The Zero was very good, but the Ki-84, and Ki-64 were better and designed for higher speed and had the armor to fight. Also remember that by 1943 the IJN had lost its carrier force and the Navy was not building carrier aircraft as fast as Army planes. Home deffence was most important.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 27, 2004)

Come on, It was the Corsair!
After WWII, they were all remved form the USAF, but when the Korean
War flared up, they were re-eqipped in several different units.
They were _that_ good!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 28, 2004)

The F4U was a great plane, BUT you talk about a real bear to land! The cockpit was too far back to make it easy to land on a base, much less a carrier. Because of that and the stability as a gun platform, the Hellcat was chosen to be the Pacific night fighter. 

At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.

One more thing, the AVG NEVER flew the P-51 or P-47. They were disbanded on July 4, 1942 and absorbed into the Army. The Army unit that replaced the AVG, the 23rd FG, also called the China Air Task Force did fly the P-51 and 47. 

Eric


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

Evenglider, thanks, I knew the AVG was disbanded, but also that a lot of the pilots were still pying in China. But as for a bear on a carrier, I found this pick of P-47s on the CVE Minilla Bay getting ready to fly off to fight over Saipan.






The water spouts behind the carrier are from Jap bombs


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Thats a GREAT picture!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 1, 2004)

That is a great picture. I think I will add that to my collection!  I will be giving a presentation on the P-47 in December and that will make a nice addition. Thanks!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

abviously they were being ferried to a land base, they didn't operate off the carrier


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Yep  Even a Storch would have problems there


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 3, 2004)

Are you serious?


How could a Storch not do it if Mossies, P-51's, B-25's, and P-40's could?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

No I mean on that particular photo...the P-47's are right near the end of the carrier, there's no way they'd be taking off from there...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 4, 2004)

It was possible to launch land based aircraft from carriers (the Doolittle operation is a fine example), but they obviously couldn't land there.

But yeah, it seems pretty unlikely in the case of those P-47s. They do appear to be parked for ferrying.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Yep 8)

I wouldnt have liked to have been taking off for the Doolittle operation in a B-25 though...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

> How could a Storch not do it if Mossies, P-51's, B-25's, and P-40's could?



the B-25 never landed on the carrier, it only took off from there.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

He never said it could land on a carrier...


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 4, 2004)

Glad you all liked the photo. The website has some good reading. But you all should know that P-47s were used off the CVEs to fly from then land on island bases. I know this photo is not one but I will keep looking.

P-47N best fighter out there!


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 8, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > How could a Storch not do it if Mossies, P-51's, B-25's, and P-40's could?
> 
> 
> 
> the B-25 never landed on the carrier, it only took off from there.........



Once, a C-130 Hercules Was able to


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 8, 2004)

MichaelHenley said:


> Once, a C-130 Hercules Was able to



Obviously a more modern super-carrier, right?  
Given that the Herc was designed to operate from short runways, I think I can believe that. 8)


----------



## redcoat (Dec 8, 2004)

Here's a photo of the C-130 on a carrier
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd22.jpg


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 8, 2004)

The link wasn't working...


Here's the whole site... http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 8, 2004)

Here it is.
Something you don't see everyday! 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 8, 2004)

Weird, same picture, completely different sites...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The fact that the shiitass P-40 got more votes than the N1K2 Shiden makes this poll useless.... There is no way u can even compare those 2 airframes, let alone say the P-40 was better.....
> 
> Bah on this poll......





> *Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of crap, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi].
> - Saburo Sakai (Japan's leading surviving ace of WWII)*



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Performance evaluations dont lie.... The Allieds test flew it and were beyond impressed..... Sakai was a very opinionated pilot...... In everything....


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

I say the P-38L though the F-4U runs a very close second.

Take any major fighter/fighter bomber (WWII piston) and compare it to the P-38L. The P-38L will at a minimum be compettitive with that planes most steller feature and have at least 1 advantage the other plane does not.

For instance If I'm going to fly over jungle and ocean to a target 1,000 miles away I want that extra engine...oops the Corsairs ran out of gas!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

I totally agree though 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Performance evaluations dont lie.... The Allieds test flew it and were beyond impressed..... Sakai was a very opinionated pilot...... In everything....



One of his opinions - "The lightnings great speed, it's sensational high altitude performance and especialy its ability to dive and climb much faster than our Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. The P-38 flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastours results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter pilot." web site (p-38online.com)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

The P-38 was also:

The first fighter to use a tricycle landing gear. 
The only American fighter in operational production status from the start to the finish of the war. 
First to encounter compressibility problems. 
First to demonstrate capability of a fighter flying across the North Atlantic for delivery to Europe. 
Only aircraft to be equipped with irreversible power-boosted flight controls. 
First fighter to fly anywhere with two torpedoes. 
First fighter to demonstrate a non-stop, un-refueled range of over 3,000 miles. 
First fighter to carry a 4,000 lb. bomb load in wartime conditions. 
Only massed produced, single seat, twin engine fighter in World War II. 

Also from p-38online.com


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Performance evaluations dont lie.... The Allieds test flew it and were beyond impressed..... Sakai was a very opinionated pilot...... In everything....



Yeah, I've read a few of his old interviews including the one that featured the part that Lunatic posted. The Zero could do no wrong, in his eyes.
It wasn't until many years after the war, when he took a ride in a P-51, that he would admit to another plane being superior.

The Zero then became his _second_ favorite, after the Mustang.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)




----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> lesofprimus said:
> 
> 
> > Performance evaluations dont lie.... The Allieds test flew it and were beyond impressed..... Sakai was a very opinionated pilot...... In everything....
> ...



The first portion of the quote I gave above: "On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft thatcould outrun, outclimb, and out dive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world".

I the web page (p-38(C.C.Jorden...)) mJorden states that in various conversations/statements with aces on both sides that the P-51 P-47s were disliked but the P-38s were "The most hated and feared aircraft"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Oh, I'm sure. But reading the various statements by the old man (Sakai), gave one the definite impression that he stubornly clung to an _almost_ unwavering belief in the Zero.
Who could blame him, I suppose. He was credited with 64 victories in it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Too True Non-Skim....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Heeeeeyy! When did you become a moderator?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Today..... Horse asked me the other day and I was outta town for my Moms funeral.. It was made official today.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Oh man, I'm sorry to hear about your mom.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Thanks..... Cancer is a mothertrucker..... Especially the third time around, like my Mom.... Atleast it was fast and painless....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I say the P-38L though the F-4U runs a very close second.
> 
> Take any major fighter/fighter bomber (WWII piston) and compare it to the P-38L. The P-38L will at a minimum be compettitive with that planes most steller feature and have at least 1 advantage the other plane does not.
> 
> For instance If I'm going to fly over jungle and ocean to a target 1,000 miles away I want that extra engine...oops the Corsairs ran out of gas!



Ahhh... but the F4U could operate off carriers, something the P-38 simply could not do (they tried and it failed). The F4U was a much tougher plane, and with drop tanks it had very good patrol endurance (though maxium combat radius was still much more limited than the P-38). In general I'd say the P-38G and H were probably a better than the F4U-1a, the P-38J was probably a little better than the F4U-1d, but the F4U-4 outlcasses the P-38L slightly. But in all cases they're pretty well matched, each plane having advantages and disadvantages relative to the other.

I don't think the "advantages of 2 engines" argument holds up that well when comparing it to an R2800 powered plane. The liquid-cooled Allisons were very vulnerable to enemy fire, where the R2800's could take a licking and keep on ticking.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Today..... Horse asked me the other day and I was outta town for my Moms funeral.. It was made official today.....



I'm sorry for your loss. I lost my Father this past May, and it was the hardest experiance of my life by far.

Take care of yourself and your family.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I the web page (p-38(C.C.Jorden...)) mJorden states that in various conversations/statements with aces on both sides that the P-51 P-47s were disliked but the P-38s were "The most hated and feared aircraft"



We had a Japanese member of the Fighter Ace community who posted that his father would pray before each sortie that he would not encounter Corsairs. I think it sorta mattered where and when they were stationed as to which planes were most feared/respected. And this probably had as much to do with the experiance level of the enemy pilots as the planes they flew by 1944.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Performance evaluations dont lie.... The Allieds test flew it and were beyond impressed..... Sakai was a very opinionated pilot...... In everything....



Often performance evaluations do lie. US post-war evaluations of Japanese planes often involve at least a few re-engineered parts to get the plane operational. On the late model Frank for instance, evidently the low-pressure fuel system was re-worked to get the plane working well enough to test its overall performance, and it turned in a speed of about 425 mph, which no Japanese tests achieved.

Also, performance evaluation figures that do not include the full text of the evaluation, just the best case figures, cover up chronic problems. The N1K1 and N1K2, and the J2M's, had serious landing gear and engine problems, which are not represented in typical performance data listings.

Seriously, if you really research it, I think you will come to the conclusion that the Ki-84 "Frank" was the best Japanese combat fighter of WWII by a noticable margin.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

RG, Thanks for your condolences... Mine to u for ur Dad.... I still cant really come to terms with this yet.. It'll take awhile I'm sure....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 10, 2004)

My condolences to you, Dan.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 10, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I the web page (p-38(C.C.Jorden...)) mJorden states that in various conversations/statements with aces on both sides that the P-51 P-47s were disliked but the P-38s were "The most hated and feared aircraft"
> ...



True enough, you were never concerned about the aircraft you never encountered. I read somewhare that one of the things the Japanese hated about the P-38 was that with it's range they never knew when or where they would show up.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2004)

Thanks Evan....


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2004)

N1K2-J Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified)

Although the N1K1-J was an outstanding fighter, it did have some serious defects. Its Homare 21 engine was notoriously unreliable, and the complex doubly-retracting landing gear was subject to frequent failures. Even before the N1J1-J entered production, work had already begun at Kawanishi on correcting some of its more glaring defects, in particular its long and complex landing gear. 

The result of these changes was the Shiden-Kai (Violet Lightning--Modified). Given the designation N1K2-J, the aircraft was completely redesigned so as to use fewer components in order to simplify its construction. More non-critical materials were to be used. Another step towards simplification involved the use of pre-formed sheet construction. Perhaps the most easily-noted innovation was the use of a low-mounted wing in place of the original mid-mounted wing. This permitted a shorter set of landing gear legs to be used, and the complex double-retraction system which had caused so many problems could be eliminated. In addition, the fuselage was lengthened and the tail surfaces were redesigned. The result was a virtually new aircraft, although the unreliable 1990 hp Homare 21 engine of the N1K1-J was retained. Armament was four 20-mm cannon, all mounted internally to the wing. 

The first N1K2-J prototype took off on its maiden flight on December 31, 1943. It was handed over to the Japanese Navy for trials in April of 1944. Although the Homare 21 engine was still mechanically unreliable, the Navy liked the aircraft so much that they authorized quantity production of the N1K2-J to be its standard land-based fighter and fighter-bomber even before the service trials were completed. Production aircraft were designated Navy Interceptor Fighter Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) Model 21. In addition to the Kawanishi plant at Naruo, the Shiden Kai was ordered into production at the Himeji works of Kawanishi. Shiden Kai fighter aircraft were also ordered into production from the Dai-Nana Kokuki Seisakusho (7th Airframe Works) of the Mitsubishi Jukogyo K. K. at Tsurashima, from the Aichi Kokuki K. K. at Eitoku, from the Showa Hikoki K. K. at Shinonoi, and from the Naval Air Arsenals at Hiro, Omura, and Koza. 

A further seven prototypes had been completed by June of 1944, However, the prototypes began to experience a long series of teething troubles, which proved difficult to correct. The Shiden-Kai program began to slip its schedules, and by the autumn of 1944 the N1K2-J production lines were beginning to experience shortages of vital components due to B-29 attacks against the factories of Kawanishi's subcontractors. By the end of 1944, only 60 Shiden Kais had been delivered by the Naruo factory, and production at Himeji did not begin until March of 1945. The other manufacturers in the Shiden Kai pool were never able to produce more than a handful of aircraft. 

The Shiden Kai was to become the best all-round fighter to be operational in the Pacific theatre. It was fast, powerful, and maneuverable, and was well-armed and armored. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter, even the later models of the P-51 Mustang which began to appear over Japan in the spring of 1945. In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats. He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier. 

However, against the B-29, the N1K2-J was less successful, since its climbing speed was insufficient and the power of the Homare 21 engine fell off rather rapidly at higher altitudes. 

Only 415 production examples of the outstanding N1K2-J fighter were built, owing primarily to construction snags and delays resulting from the continuous B-29 raids on the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war. With the exception of Kawanishi's Naruo and Himeji plants, the other companies involved in the production pool were late in getting started and delivered only a token number of machines before the war ended. It is fortunate for the Allies that this outstanding aircraft was not available in greater quantity. 

After the war in the Pacific was over, several N1K2-J fighters were discovered intact at Japanese airfields and were brought back to the United States for study. These aircraft were compared to all the available Allied fighters and found to be superior in all around superiorty. In mock dogfighting, several American aviators complemented the aircraft and its performance. They went so far as to say that had the Japanese been able to mass produce this aircraft earlier in the War, the loss of pilots would have been unacceptable.

Specification of the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai: 

One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 369 mph at 19,355 feet, 359 mph at 9840 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph at 9845 feet, service ceiling 35,300 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 22 seconds. Normal range 1066 miles at 219 mph at 9840 feet, maximum range 1488 miles with 88 Imp. gall. drop tank. 

Weights: 5858 pounds empty, 8818 pounds loaded, 10,714 pounds maximum loaded. 

Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 7 29/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 29/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet.

Armament: Four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings. Two 551-pound bombs or one 88 Imp. gall. drop tank could be carried externally.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 11, 2004)

I revisited the article "The F4U-4 the best fighter/bomber in WWII" "Planes and Pilots " website and it's comparison of the F-4U-4. It has several Except for the P-38 comments acceleration, manuverability, dive speed. Maimly it was a comparison with the P-51 so a further comparison had to be made to show the P-38s stats which are better or the same. Top speed P-38L 443mph, F4U-4 446mph (confirmed with other references the -5 is 460mph) Max climb P-38 4, 120-4,225, F4u-4 4,175 except for carrier landings the f-4U does not have a clear advantage anywhere and the P-38 has small advantages in many areas criticle in ACM. 

I still go for the P-38


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 11, 2004)

My condolences to you Les.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

Thank You...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Me too.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I revisited the article "The F4U-4 the best fighter/bomber in WWII" "Planes and Pilots " website and it's comparison of the F-4U-4. It has several Except for the P-38 comments acceleration, manuverability, dive speed. Maimly it was a comparison with the P-51 so a further comparison had to be made to show the P-38s stats which are better or the same. Top speed P-38L 443mph, F4U-4 446mph (confirmed with other references the -5 is 460mph) Max climb P-38 4, 120-4,225, F4u-4 4,175 except for carrier landings the f-4U does not have a clear advantage anywhere and the P-38 has small advantages in many areas criticle in ACM.
> 
> I still go for the P-38



That top speed for the P-38L is with the under wing pylons removed. If you remove the pylons on the F4U-4, top speed was 464 mph. How can you argue with the USN about the figures? (see http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf - check the last page notes for the "clean condition", which shows a speed of 403 knots). Climb rate is also quite a bit better, at 4.9 mins to 20,000 feet with capped plyons aboard, vs 7 mins to the same alt for the P-38L. That's a huge difference.

The p-38 is one of my favorite planes too, but I still think the F4U-4 was clearly superior at all but very high altitudes, where the P-38 was perhaps slightly better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 9, 2005)

> The p-38 is one of my favorite planes too, but I still think the F4U-4 was clearly superior at all but very high altitudes, where the P-38 was perhaps slightly better.


I agree on all counts....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

P-38 would always out-turn, out-dive, out-gun, out-range the Corsair. Best evidence seems to suggest that the speed and climb were relatively close. 

Furthermore, the P-38 enjoyed significant advantages over the Shiden in everything but maneuverability. Properly flown, P-38's were able to counter Shidens without much difficulty.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> P-38 would always out-turn, out-dive, out-gun, out-range the Corsair. Best evidence seems to suggest that the speed and climb were relatively close.
> 
> Furthermore, the P-38 enjoyed significant advantages over the Shiden in everything but maneuverability. Properly flown, P-38's were able to counter Shidens without much difficulty.



Best evidence is that the F4U-4 with capped pylons was about the same speed and climbed 33% faster than the P-38L with the pylons removed.

The P-38, even the L, could not out turn a F4U-4 at speed. I seriously doubt it could out-dive one either, max dive speed on the F4U-4 was 550 mph and it was very fast on entering a dive and did not suffer the compression problems of the P-38. The F4U-4 was still a stable gun platform at 500 mph, the P-38 certainly was not.

The Shiden's were no match for the F4U-1d, let alone the F4U-4.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

The F would out-turn the P-51 which would turn with the F4U. The L was even better. The P-38 could handle the F4U in a turning fight. It could also out dive it. The higher diving-speed of the F4U proves nothing. The P-38 accelerated faster in the dive, meaning that it will pull away from the Corsair once the dive is initiated.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

> The Shiden's were no match for the F4U-1d, let alone the F4U-4.


Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 11, 2005)

I know! Strange thing, that! 



The N1K1/2 were like the Mig-29s of today (German in particular)...


Pretty fast, EXTREMELY agile, and nigh-on invincible in close, though both have major disadvantages in other areas, whatever they might be.


In mock dogfights, thought technologically at a great disadvantage, Luftwaffe (only plane to be kept from the East by the reformed Luftwaffe after the wall was torn down) Mig-29s proceeded to kick F-16 Block 50 ASS.


I think it was something like 40 mock kills on the F-16s before they "took down" a Mig!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

Heres alittle tidbit, although not against Corsairs......


In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier......


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Heres alittle tidbit, although not against Corsairs......
> 
> 
> In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier......



IIRC they were low on fuel and ammo and heading for home when bounced. And I think he in fact only shot down one.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > The Shiden's were no match for the F4U-1d, let alone the F4U-4.
> 
> 
> Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U........



How many?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The F would out-turn the P-51 which would turn with the F4U. The L was even better. The P-38 could handle the F4U in a turning fight. It could also out dive it. The higher diving-speed of the F4U proves nothing. The P-38 accelerated faster in the dive, meaning that it will pull away from the Corsair once the dive is initiated.



The P-51 could not turn with the Corsair, where do you get that from?

See P51-B Vs F4U-1 pg. 5. Also see the conclusions on page 7. Keep in mind the -1 corsair was inferior to the -1d which was inferior to the -4, where the P-51B was superior (as a dogfighter) to the D model. As you will see, the Corsair was the better turning plane.

The P-51 could out turn the P-38 at medium speeds and above. Only if the speed got below about 200 IAS would the P-38 start to have a meaningful advantage. Above 300 IAS, the P-51 wins hands down. The F4U-4 could out turn the P-51, and at reasonable combat speeds of over 200 IAS it could out turn the P-38.

Yes the P-38 had better initial dive acceleration than the F4U-4. But even that is subject to limits, the P-38 would start suffering buffeting from compression well over 50 mph before the Corsair would. The P-38 dives better, but not a lot better, probably not enough better to escape.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

He shot down 4 Hellcats.. Only 1 pilot was lost.....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

The F-16 can't fire out of its visual range though, GrG. So, it's not that impressive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 12, 2005)

Shiden's did not score countless kills over Corsairs and much of their success was due to the phenomenal skill of their pilots.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > The F would out-turn the P-51 which would turn with the F4U. The L was even better. The P-38 could handle the F4U in a turning fight. It could also out dive it. The higher diving-speed of the F4U proves nothing. The P-38 accelerated faster in the dive, meaning that it will pull away from the Corsair once the dive is initiated.
> ...



I will have to check some moe. At this time I've got the data from the following sources:

With the dive slats the P-38 dove quite well and was controllable above 500mph.

Planes and Pilots of WWII where the 38 is a least right there with the F4U-4 or better and at least 3 except for the 38 statements.

C C Jordan and his interviews where he states that P-38/P-51 pilots (some prefering the P-51 overall) and of course Art Heiden who say the P-38 was better/didn't give anything up to the P-51 in ACM at least.

The F4U-4 was/is a great plane but where does 5,500 ft/min come from? 

While I think the P-38 was better at least in most areas and with an efective pilot could take on anything in the air in WWII and have a 1 to 1 or better chance of winning.

Please put up some info here.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Lightning Guy said:
> ...



Everything I've read indicates that the dive recovery flaps allowed the P-38L to recover from an otherwise terminal dive, but they still had to cut back on the power. These flaps do not prevent the compression effects, they just allow the plane to recover despite them. If its above about 460 mph, it's flying the wings through compression (they were poorly designed for this, being of a conventional high aspect design), and that means buffeting.

5500 fpm? Where is that? The figures I quoted were 4.9 mins to 20,000 feet with capped pylons (which implies ~4.6 mins to 20k w/o them) for the F4U-4, which comes right out of the declassified F4U-4 pilot handbook from the USN, along with the 464 mph top speed figure. This converts to a sustained climb rate of a little better than 4000 fpm, and you can see from the climb graph in the handbook the overall climb performance (with capped pylons).

As for sources, I've already posted a bunch of P-38 urls (I can post them again if you like?). You can follow the link in the quoted part above (I've located it in red for you) to see the USN comparison data of the P-51B and F4U-1a (upgraded 1944 version with water injection but no paddle prop). Once on the page referenced, you can investigate the other pages of that report.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2005)

The P-51 developed a strong buffet in a dive if the speeds were getting much above 500mph to. John Lowell in "Top Guns" reported "diving at 600mph" in the Spitfire dogfight story (granted this is probably overstated but shows high speed dives are both possible and controlable in a P-38.

The Plans and Pilots of WWII graph shows 4.9-5 mins to 20,000ft for the P-38L. C C Jordon cites 4,125-4,225ft/mn max climb and 4.91min to 20,000 for the P-38L Identical to the F4U-4. The graph also shows a climb to 20,000ft at 7min in cruise power (1,100hp). My understandind is the planes in the graph are set up for average combat conditions (not capped pylons).

The 5,500 is what the F4U-4 would have to climb to meet the figure of 33% better climb than the P-38. 

I checked out the P-51, F4u site, interesting. I can easily accept the F4U over the P-51. I did notice a bias for the F4U with comments like "Not suited to carrier operations" when the F4U was not carrier qualified for the same things at the time of the test, early '44.

I can't buy the superority of the P-51 over the The P-38 for the following reasons.

1. The pilots who flew both felt the P-38 was better/as good, Art H said "There was nothing the P-51 could do that the P-38L couldn't do better". I rate this high for these reasons:
a. They flew both of them in combat. Thier lives depended on it.
b. We both know they flew them against each other, officialy or not, and these pilots knew how to get everything out of a P-38 where other test pilots might not.

2. At 250 and above, the fowler flap was prohibited, affecting turn in F/G/early Js esp. at altitude, however the dive flap of late J and all L models would kick the nose up about 20-25deg for the same effect with the same drag limitations. These slats worked better the faster you flew.

3. The P-38J-25 and L Actually rolled Faster as the airspeed went up the P-51 went down above 300mph.

4. The prefered speed of combat for the P-38, per Tom Lynch, was 300/350mph as this maximizes performance.

5. The controls on a P-51 tightened up considerably above 300/350mph. Exterme turning manauvers High speed/high altitude in a p-51 could also turn into a vicious stall/spin suddenly and without warning.

6. Due to energy loss the speed of a dogfight is down to 300mph range after just a few turns. Flown properly the P-38 is reported to have excellent energy retention and better energy recovery (note acceleration) than a P-51.

7. P-38 acceleration, climb and ceiling are also better that the P-51 at all speeds/altitudes (granted this diminishes to zero as the high end limits are approached).

I think a dogfight between a P-38L and a F4U-4 with experianced pilots would be incredable they are very closley matched! 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The P-51 developed a strong buffet in a dive if the speeds were getting much above 500mph to. John Lowell in "Top Guns" reported "diving at 600mph" in the Spitfire dogfight story (granted this is probably overstated but shows high speed dives are both possible and controlable in a P-38.



The P-51D developed porpousing at about 525 TAS in a dive, due to the bubble canopy. The P-38 (all models) developed shuddering from compression effects before it hit 500 mph TAS. The 600 mph figure is bogus, that puts the airflow over the wings above Mach 1 even at sea level.

Here I found this on the P-38 dive and compression:



> A typical dive of the P-38 from high altitudes would always experience compressibility. Starting from 36,000 ft., the P-38 would rapidly approach the *Mach .675 *(445 mph true airspeed). At this point, the airflow going over the wing exceeds Mach 1. A shockwave is created, thus breaking up the airflow equaling a loss of lift. The shockwave destroys the pressure difference between the upper and lower wing, and disrupts the ability for the aircraft to sustain flight. As the lift decreases, the airflow moving back from the wing also changes in its form and pattern. Normal downwash aft of the wing towards the tail begins to deteriorate. The airflow across the tail shifts from normal to a condition where there is now a greater upload, of lifting force, on the tail itself. With the greater uploading force applied to the tail, the nose of the aircraft wants to nose down even more, which creates a steeper and faster dive. As the aircraft approaches the vertical line, it begins to tuck under and starts a high-speed outside loop. At this point, the airframe is at the greatest point of structural failure. When the angle of attack increases during the dive, it also increases for the tail. The resulting effect is that the pilot cannot move the controls because tremendous force is required to operate the aircraft. The pilot is simply a passenger during this period. Shockwaves become shock fronts, which decrease the lift no matter what the pilot tries to do. Instead of smooth airflow over the wing, it is extremely turbulent, and strikes the tail with great force. The aircraft can only recover when it enters lower, denser atmosphere lower to the ground.
> 
> The solution to the problem was in understanding that the speed of sound changes with the altitude. At sea level, it is 764 mph, while at 36,000 ft. it is 660 mph. An aircraft moving at 540 mph at 36,000 ft. is much higher in the compressibility zone. The same speed at sea level results in the aircraft being exposed to lower effects of compressibility, and will respond to pilot controls. The dive recovery flap was a solution to this problem. In the ETO, German pilots would dive out of trouble because they knew the P-38 pilots would not follow. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of the aircraft in normal battle conditions. The NACA tested the flaps in high-speed wind tunnels at the Ames Laboratory. They tried several locations before discovering that when the flaps were positioned just aft of the trailing edge of the wings, it showed definite improvements. The flaps were finally positioned beneath the wings outboard of the booms, and just aft of the main structural beam. The pilots had a button on the yoke, and would simply _activate the flap just prior to entering a dive_.
> http://www.p-38online.com/dive.html



The P-51 didn't hit compression until above 0.81 mach. Regaurdless of the dive recovery flaps, once the P-38 hits compression effects, it would be nearly impossible to aim the guns.

Another thing I'd point out about the P-38L vs. Spitfire story - at low altitude the speed of sound is higher, allowing the high speed dive (though I still think it was more likely about 450-500 mph), AND the P-38's were noted for being "surprisingly manuverable _at low altitudes_". 



wmaxt said:


> The Plans and Pilots of WWII graph shows 4.9-5 mins to 20,000ft for the P-38L. C C Jordon cites 4,125-4,225ft/mn max climb and 4.91min to 20,000 for the P-38L Identical to the F4U-4. The graph also shows a climb to 20,000ft at 7min in cruise power (1,100hp). My understandind is the planes in the graph are set up for average combat conditions (not capped pylons).
> 
> The 5,500 is what the F4U-4 would have to climb to meet the figure of 33% better climb than the P-38.



All F4U-4's had capped pylons for WWII. They were so much faster than the Japanese planes they faced that there was no need to remove them. P-38's flew with and without pylons, depending on the mission and the time frame.

As for climb rates, initial rate of climb figures are pretty meaningless, you need to use time to altitude figures to get any feel for the real climb performance of a plane. The Jordan sight uses the Lockheed-Martin climb chart:







The problem with this chart is there is no verification of the data anywhere. Lockheed-Martin will not provide any info, in fact they won't even reply to an email requesting the source of this data. All other sources indicate ~7 mins to 20k for the P-38L-5-LO. Furthermore, the late J series is consistantly quoted as having been faster to alitude than the L series (which makes sense as it weighed less) at 5.9 minutes to 20K. I suspect these Lockheed figures are for a hot-rodded P-38L, or, more likely, they are really the figures for the P-38K.

On the other hand, we have every reason to believe the USN report. The figures in the report were never intended for non-military viewing and represent what the Navy was telling its pilots to expect from the plane. The .pdf's at the USN site are the Navy's way of complying with the FIA without having to respond to individual requests. If it'd been up to the USN, we'd never have seen these documents. They don't like to declassify anything!

My Dad did these tests on the FJ (Navy F-86) and the way they did it was for 4 planes to takeoff and the first thing they'd do is time the climb. The two middle performers results were used compile the test results. Ordinary USN pilots (usually an advanced flight instructor and 3 of his students) were used to conduct the tests. If the two planes were way off the best performer, they'd land and have the planes checked out and redo the test. Also note that 115/145 fuel was used in the F4U-4 test, not 135/150.



wmaxt said:


> I checked out the P-51, F4u site, interesting. I can easily accept the F4U over the P-51. I did notice a bias for the F4U with comments like "Not suited to carrier operations" when the F4U was not carrier qualified for the same things at the time of the test, early '44.



I agree, that site is biased against the P-51. The USN pilot handbook excerpt .pdf file is a better source for info on the F4U-4.



wmaxt said:


> I can't buy the superority of the P-51 over the The P-38 for the following reasons.
> 
> 1. The pilots who flew both felt the P-38 was better/as good, Art H said "There was nothing the P-51 could do that the P-38L couldn't do better".
> 
> ...




This letter (a reply to a magazine writer's questions) was posted on the usenet forums back in 1998. It comes from an article in a flight magazine. The pilot was only refered to by first name, he did not want to be contacted by readers.



> Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. _When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, *up past 3000 rpm*. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. *You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more*_.
> 
> Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery. The 38 seemed to have plenty of power for a prop job and certainly below 15,000 ft. no German fighter could get away from it.
> 
> ...



The point is, you can find pilots who liked the P-38 better than the P-51, and you can find pilots who liked the P-51 better than the P-38.



wmaxt said:


> b. We both know they flew them against each other, officialy or not, and these pilots knew how to get everything out of a P-38 where other test pilots might not.



Perhaps so, but it is questionable if pilots who'd mastered the P-38 ever mock dogfought those who'd masterd the P-51. Usually these would have occured during the transition period, where they had lots of P-38 experiance but little P-51 experiance.

Also, mock dogfights tend to come down to who can stay on who's tail. This is meaningless since in a real dogfight that plane might well have been dead before it ever got to the tail chase.




wmaxt said:


> 2. At 250 and above, the fowler flap was prohibited, affecting turn in F/G/early Js esp. at altitude, however the dive flap of late J and all L models would kick the nose up about 20-25deg for the same effect with the same drag limitations. These slats worked better the faster you flew.



The dive recovery flaps are noted as having been used on occasion as a trick to get the nose inside an enemy in a turn fight, never as manuver flaps in combat. The P-51 however, had a 5 degree combat flaps setting that could be dropped at any speed, and a 10 (or 15) degree setting that was useable below about 325 IAS.

While there is no arguing that the P-38 turned better at lower speeds, especially at lower altitude, I think it is clear the P-51 had the turn advantage at high speeds and especially at high speeds at high altitude.



wmaxt said:


> 3. The P-38J-25 and L Actually rolled Faster as the airspeed went up the P-51 went down above 300mph.



Yes but the P-51 still rolls better up to 330 mph, and the difference is not that huge thereafter. Also, while it is true the P-38 absolute roll was higher, this was using power boosted ailerons. If you've ever driven a 1950's or early 60's car with power steering you know that power hydrolic units of that time period were very stiff, gave no feedback, and also tended to have a tiny bit of lag on reversal. When it comes to the ability to do a series of rolls and reverse rolls, I'm not sure the P-38 would really have the advantage. In any case, it is questionable if there is enough difference overall to matter much.



wmaxt said:


> 4. The prefered speed of combat for the P-38, per Tom Lynch, was 300/350mph as this maximizes performance.



IAS or TAS. As you can see from the quote above, all planes sought to maintain speed. I suspect this is TAS. The P-51 optimal speed was more like 350-500 TAS.



wmaxt said:


> 5. The controls on a P-51 tightened up considerably above 300/350mph. Exterme turning manauvers High speed/high altitude in a p-51 could also turn into a vicious stall/spin suddenly and without warning.



In the hands of an inexperianced pilot yes it could, but as you can see from the quote above, in the hands of an experianced pilot this was not a signficant issue. As for the controls tightening up, that didn't happen until higher speeds. The ailerons never tightened up, the rudder was always quite workable. The elevator became stiff, usually well over 400 IAS at lower altitudes.



wmaxt said:


> 6. Due to energy loss the speed of a dogfight is down to 300mph range after just a few turns. Flown properly the P-38 is reported to have excellent energy retention and better energy recovery (note acceleration) than a P-51.



The P-51 had better energy retention if flown right (not breaking the laminar flow bucket), though I agree the P-38L had better acceleration (below 300 IAS). Flown properly, the P-51 does not make "turns", it dives into the attack, zoom climbs away, then dives back into the attack. Eventually energy will be lost, but the whole point is that the target should be dead by then.



wmaxt said:


> 7. P-38 acceleration, climb and ceiling are also better that the P-51 at all speeds/altitudes (granted this diminishes to zero as the high end limits are approached).



In the ETO, pilots felt the P-51 was superior at altitude to the P-38J (with boosted alerions and dive recovery flaps). In the PTO, "high altitude" was not really high by comparison.

The P-51 is not made to fight by using acceleration or climb. It is intended to start into the fight faster than its opponent and use its superior zoom and E retention to win the fight, and to disengage when these are diminished. At very high speeds it could out turn both the 109 and the 190.



wmaxt said:


> I think a dogfight between a P-38L and a F4U-4 with experianced pilots would be incredable they are very closley matched! 8)



Again, i think the F4U-4 would win most of the time, as it really does out-perform the P-38L at any reasonable combat altitude. The only place the P-38L wins is if the fight falls pretty well below 200 IAS.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Interesting analysis. That is a good point about IAS versus TAS. During dive testing with a P-47, a test pilot reached 725 MPH IAS. That is impossible, because terminal velocity on the P-47 was about 600 MPH. The TAS was estimated to be in the mid-500 MPH range. If the IAS had been accurate, the P-47 would have been the first plane to break the sound barrier. Obviously, that wasn't the case.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Interesting analysis. That is a good point about IAS versus TAS. During dive testing with a P-47, a test pilot reached 725 MPH IAS. That is impossible, because terminal velocity on the P-47 was about 600 MPH. The TAS was estimated to be in the mid-500 MPH range. If the IAS had been accurate, the P-47 would have been the first plane to break the sound barrier. Obviously, that wasn't the case.



This ia a situation that all WWII fighters went through, I've read several variations on most of the planes we talk about. It took a few years before the effects of trans sonic affects on the air speed indicator.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 14, 2005)

RG, A couple of points.

The statement comparing the P-38/P-51 was in one case for certain to be Art Heiden - certainly a P-38 fan but had over 100 missions in the P-38 and 52? in the P-51. In the C C Jordon web site he is quoting "several" pilots including Hub Zemke (who refered to the P-38 as an "icewagon").

If I came off like they, P-51/P-38, pilots All prefered the P-38 "oops"  , everybodies got an opinion and they will never all be the same. If those pilots had thought the P-51 was Much worse we would have been hearing it ever since - But it remains fact that some pilots prefered the P-38 in a fight.

Note on the climb speed graph at WEP 20,000 is right at the 4.9/5.0min range and is cited at 4.91 in the C C Jordon web site. Normal power, 1,100hp, is 7 min to 20,000ft. The site also quotes climb at 20,000 is still 3,700ft/min. The P-51 is 8:20+/- in military power(1,590hp_. Art Hieden put it this way "The P-38 was at altitude before we reached the coast, the P-51 still had a long way to go.". The P-51 could not out climb a P-38 anywhere.

The Lockheed graph was a comparison with the p-51 for internal use there would be NO REASON to compare the two if they were not in the same weight and trim. Assuming they used a tricked out P-38 against a standard test loading (full ammo ballast and half fuel est from the test data as it matches the standard data) P-51 is silly esp since it was an internal test. I don't have Bodie's book so I don't have more info on the loadings. Edit: I think one of the reasons this data looks funny is that Lockheed had the Gall to test a P-38 against a P-51 at the same throttle setting WEP.

The Baugher website tells of a P-38 dive that with full control registered 740mph or so (yes we know it was under 600mph) not that this was recomended. I know that IAS redline on the P-38 is 500mph/asl or Mach .68.

The P-51 was not "hands down" the better fighter, like the P-38 it had it's strong points and bad. The F4U with a better airfoil and lighter wing loading (almost the same area as the P-38 and much lighter weight) should be better than either the P-38 or the P-51. In a dogfight there are other complications as well.

In this class of aircraft it comes down to the pilot.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Interesting analysis. That is a good point about IAS versus TAS. During dive testing with a P-47, a test pilot reached 725 MPH IAS. That is impossible, because terminal velocity on the P-47 was about 600 MPH. The TAS was estimated to be in the mid-500 MPH range. If the IAS had been accurate, the P-47 would have been the first plane to break the sound barrier. Obviously, that wasn't the case.



IAS is always lower than TAS, unless something is wrong. The air-speed indicator is supposed to measure the relative air speed of the plane. As the altitude increases, the air gets thinner, and the amount of air moving past the sensor at a given speed is lower. 

However, early air-speed indicators tended to give false readings at very high speeds.

TAS measurements are usually based either on IAS speeds and a conversion function, which relies on the accuracy of the air-speed sensors, which may be incorrect, or they rely on time between two points measured from the ground, which tends to ignore wind speed. Neither method of measurement is truely accurate.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

wmax,

I'm in no way saying the P-51 was better than the P-38L or late J. All I'm saying it it was not totally outclassed by it. I agree the pilot made the difference. Again I go back to the point that if the conditions of the fight are equally skilled pilots engaging at high alititude, the P-51 enjoys some advantages at the start of the fight which if he can exploit should make him the victor. If the fight drags on and altitude drops much below 20K or speeds drop below 200 IAS, the P-38 gains the advantage.

As you can see below, the P-51 climb was not that much worse than the P-38 climb. However, I suspect the P-38 climb in cruise condition was much better which is what was being refered to by the pilot you referenced.

As for the P-38 being in "full control" at such a high speed, I just don't see how. The dive recovery flaps do not change the laws of physics. Once the airflow over the wings goes into the transonic region the ailerons are nearly useless and the plane is going to suffer buffeting. I really suspect what they mean is that it was fully able to recover from the dive, not that it was in sufficient control for the pilot to aim the guns or do much manuvering.

I've made another post for purposes of displaying I chart I found comparing US plane performance. As you will see the image is so large it would disrupt this chat, so i've put it in it's own thread called US Plane Performance Chart for easy and perminant reference on this forum. 

As you can see in the chart, climb to 20k times and radius of action figures (in parans) are given as follows:

*F4U-4: 5.0 mins (615 mi) -- F4U-1: 7.4 mins (500 mi) -- F6F-5: 7.0 mins (500 mi)

P-47D: 7.6 mins (650 mi) -- P-38J: 5.9 mins (450 mi) -- P-51B: 6.6 mins (550 mi)

F2G-1: 5.5 mins (525 mi) -- F7F: 5.2 mins (403 mi) -- F8F: 4.7 mins (208 mi)*

Note that the P-51B climb is at MP, all the rest are at WEP. Given that the P-51 is at 67 hg manifold pressure, perhaps they just didn't consider the Merlin had WEP?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 16, 2005)

I am immediately skeptical of those numbered. There is no was that the F4U could match the P-38J in radius of action. And the P-47D certainly didn't better any of the fighter in the list (except the F8F).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I am immediately skeptical of those numbered. There is no was that the F4U could match the P-38J in radius of action. And the P-47D certainly didn't better any of the fighter in the list (except the F8F).



Read the definition of "Range":



> Radius of action is based upon Navy requirements for a combat mission. This includes fuel allowances for 20-minute warm-up and idling; 1-minute takeoff; 10-minute rendezvous at 60% normal power at sea level; climb to 15,000 feet , 60% normal power; cruising to objective at 15,000 feet at optimal cruising. 20-minute combat (15,000 ft.) at full power; return to base at 1,500 feet at optimum cruising; and reserve 60 minutes at optimum cruising; An auxillary tank is used for rendevous, climb, and cruising to object and is dropped upon reaching the objective. All other fuel comes from the main protected tank. Radius includes distance covered in climb but not in descent.



Well, this is not terribly clear but by looking at the fuel loading (right under the weights) we can see that on the P-38 the leading edge tanks are empty, the main and reserve tanks (90 gallons and 60 gallons respectively) are filled, giving 300 gallons. For the P-47 however, both the 205 gallon main and 100 gallon aux. tanks are filled, giving it 305 gallons. It is pretty obvious that even though the allisons are more efficient than the R-2800, they are not twice as efficent.

Furthermore the P-38 gains no range advantage from its ability to carry those huge 250 gallon drop tanks because these are dropped upon reaching the objective with the plane needing to meet the remainder of the mission spec, which requires 20 minutes of combat, cruise home, and still have 60 mins cruising time in reserve. So the advantage gained by being able to carry up to 500 gallons in the drop tanks is totally lost.

If the two 55 gallon leading edge tanks were filled, the P-38J would do much better in this chart, as this would apply entirely to the cruise back range and thus allow more time on the drop tanks as well. Given that all of this fuel would be applied to the optimal cruise back, I'm guessing it would increase the overall range by 50% or more - to at least 675 miles. But still a fair amount of the drop tank range would be lost.

So I agree the P-38 is a little short-changed in terms of range in this chart. The P-51B gets short-changed 65 gallons as well, but that does not invalidate the rest of the chart.

Another consideration is that lacking that fuel probably benifited the relative climb rates attributed to the P-51B and the P-38J.

As for the F4U-4, the cruise is done closer to the engines rated altitude than the others, which may contribute some. Also, it could carry two large 150 gallon drop tanks where the F4U-1 and Hellcat could only carry one, so that may also be a factor. Also the R-2800(C) had much better cooling than the R-2800(B) so it may have cruised at a leaner fuel mixture setting which could noticably improve its range.

Finally, I would say that range figures are much more abitrary than climb figures. The Navy probably had to estimate the range capabilities of the USAAF planes in the list based upon USAAF supplied data to some degree, to fit them to their mission profile. But climb to altitude data is very strait-forward and so probably much more accurate.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmax,
> 
> I'm in no way saying the P-51 was better than the P-38L or late J. All I'm saying it it was not totally outclassed by it. I agree the pilot made the difference. Again I go back to the point that if the conditions of the fight are equally skilled pilots engaging at high alititude, the P-51 enjoys some advantages at the start of the fight which if he can exploit should make him the victor. If the fight drags on and altitude drops much below 20K or speeds drop below 200 IAS, the P-38 gains the advantage.
> 
> ...



I can go there.  

Actually as I understand it the slat both pitched up the angle of attack but also broke up the super/trans sonic airflow that locked the stabilizer/elevator and restored lift. Even in the earlier models of the P-38 the aileron is not affected, in fact the use of aileron/barrel rolls was part of the technique used to control speeds in a dive. 

The P-51D was not supposed to go over 505mph. Above that all bets are off. I've read the P-51 was good for a while after that and Heiden says it's not a problem in the P-38L at least at the speeds needed in a chase of a bf-109/fw-190. Heiden's comment may also have been follow to an altitude/speed suitable for engagement too. Beyond that I just don't know. 

Flight manual data: P-51D climb normal power to 25,000ft (the P-38 listing does not show 20,000ft) in a loaded condition 11,200lbs - 24min. P-38L same conditions, 21,000lbs with pylons 14min. The laminar flow wing was good for range and speed but climb and manuvering are hurt. The P-38 was originaly an intercepter - optimized for climb. That being so it's pretty suprising it did as well as it did in other areas.

FYI, The P-38L is given a 1,210 mi range (internal) with a 50 gal reserve and pylons @ 30,000ft/285tas for max range.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

As you can see that is 505 IAS.

This compares with the following for the P-38:






Breaking up the tubulence did help to achieve some proper airflow over the tail, but it also increased the turbulence and thus there had to be buffeting. Remember, air goes from acting like a liquid to acting like a solid when you hit mach speed.

Interestingly, the USAAF P-38L combat range is 450 mph (at 290 mph @ 10,000 feet). I suspect this is where the USN got that figure for the J from.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 16, 2005)

I assume you mean 450 miles and not miles per hour. That figure is often posted but is actually the range at maximum power. 

It is interesting that the P-38's stats were given for less that optimal conditions, at least in range . . . what else might be wrong on the chart? Maybe nothing, but it does make everything else suspect does it not?

Interestingly, Milo Burcham tested a P-38F (no leading edge tanks) and found that the P-38 had a ferry range without external tanks of 1,300 miles. Granted combat range would be less, but could a P-47 or F4U match that figure? By the end of the war, P-38Ls in the Pacific were flying missions to a RADIUS of 950 miles.

The P-38 never carried 250 gallon tanks so far as I know. They did, however carry 165 gallon tanks (usually referred to as 150 gallon) and 310 gallon tanks (usually referred to as 300 gallon). Correct internal fuel for a P-38L was 430 gallons (2 x 90 gallon mains, 2 x 63 gallon reserves, 2 x 62 gallon leading edge). This is more fuel than two 165 gallon tanks (330 gallons) and this mission load was regularly flown in the ETO. In the PTO, P-38s regularly carried 1 310 and 1 165 gallon tanks (475 gallons) without undue difficulty. No other WWII fighter could match the P-38 for range, ferry or combat.

The P-38 never carried 250gallon tanks. I'm not sure where you got that figure.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 17, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I assume you mean 450 miles and not miles per hour. That figure is often posted but is actually the range at maximum power.
> 
> It is interesting that the P-38's stats were given for less that optimal conditions, at least in range . . . what else might be wrong on the chart? Maybe nothing, but it does make everything else suspect does it not?
> 
> ...



Range is an interesting thing The 1,210miles I noted above was internal fuel only, as listed in the "Flight Operation Instructing Manual" for the P-38L with full internal fuel listed at 410gal-50 gal reserve or 360gal usable. My understanding is that basic range numbers are the radius on internal fuel. So for the P-38L warm-up, takeoff, form-up, mission, combat @WEP, return, landing, and reserve gives 450mi/nominal. The P-51 had more fuel internal so it actually does a little better. All range numbers are theroretical due to all the variables involved, P-38s flew many missions over 2,000 miles R/T with combat. The last combat mission was reported to have been 2,800mi with combat over Borneo on 15, Aug. '45, can you imagine more than 13hrs in a P-38 cocpit?

An interesting point on the P-51 - the last 20 gallons in the Fusalage tank was not recomended for use except in extreme emergancies because of severe CG problems.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Breaking up the tubulence did help to achieve some proper airflow over the tail, but it also increased the turbulence and thus there had to be buffeting. Remember, air goes from acting like a liquid to acting like a solid when you hit mach speed.
> 
> Interestingly, the USAAF P-38L combat range is 450 mph (at 290 mph @ 10,000 feet). I suspect this is where the USN got that figure for the J from.
> 
> ...



I understand your reasoning, however signifcant buffeting is not reported and with correct usage critical speed was not exceeded possibly accounting for that fact.

The range I quoted does not include combat activities possibly accounting for the difference. It also stated 360gal useable fuel to. The USAAF seemed to have a different set of performance rules/specs with the P-38. Then there is the P-51B with Mil power rated at full engine power. The numbers don't always make sense.

One thing about your report by George, I've read about techniques like differential throttle in many places - it was done and it was effective both in rolling and in turning (check out Jeff Ethels article in the "Flight Journal Magazine"). I've also read that there was more training and ues of such techniques in the pacific. A number of P-38 pilots felt the Aircrews/aircraft was handled very poorly in the ETO, from support to training, where it was always the "Red headed stepchild". George doesn't sound like he ever felt comfortable in a P-38.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I assume you mean 450 miles and not miles per hour. That figure is often posted but is actually the range at maximum power.
> 
> It is interesting that the P-38's stats were given for less that optimal conditions, at least in range . . . what else might be wrong on the chart? Maybe nothing, but it does make everything else suspect does it not?
> 
> ...



http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p38_lightning.html <--- 250 gal drop tank



> Cruise and Range
> Typical combat radius for the J/L variants was 275 miles for 410 US gallons of fuel (no external tanks) and 650 miles with 740 US gallons (w/ 165 gal external tanks). These ranges allowed for 20 minutes combat at target and 30 minutes of reserves. With 300 gal tanks, missions were made over ranges in excess of 1000 miles and durations of nine hours or more.
> http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm



Again, I don't see anything wrong with the chart. It specifies 300 gallons of internal fuel equals a 450 mile combat range. This fits the above info almost exactly, showing a 575 mile range listed above using the full ~410 gallons of internal fuel and only a 30 min reserve. The rest of the data, including the climb rates, are backed up by numerous other sources.

Why did the USN not consider fuel in the wing tanks? Why didn't they consider fuel in the rear tank of the P-51? That's hard to answer, but perhaps they felt that entering combat with fuel in these tanks made the plane too vulernable or hurt manuverability too much. If the tank has had fuel in it at all, it is subject to fire even if the fuel has been expended - in fact, a tank with 25% fuel is much more vulnerable than a full one. If a tank been purged before flight, it's not subject to fire. The weight in the outer wing panels of the P-38 would have detracted from its combat capability which it was assumed would be needed the moment the drop tanks were released, and would make it more vulnerable to fire. Perhaps that is the reasoning?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> An interesting point on the P-51 - the last 20 gallons in the Fusalage tank was not recomended for use except in extreme emergancies because of severe CG problems.



I accounted only 65 gallons to the P-51B's rear tank for just this reason, it could in fact hold 85 gallons. A skilled pilot could handle a full rear tank, but it was tricky and takeoff with any crosswind whatsoever was very dangerous.

As for the P-38J figures, all I'm saying is the 450 mile return distance is very reasonable given the 300 gallons of fuel stated and the other conditions listed. I agree the P-38J/L could fly a lot further than that, especially if it had full internal fuel and the large (300 gallon?) drop tanks. However, a 1000 mile return flight after combat is doubtful. It might be possible if combat were minimal and altitude was retained (fuel economy is better at rated altitude).

Many PTO sorties were flown such that they landed at a base much closer to the target than they took off from. You cannot look at total distance flown and simply divide by two to get the effective combat radius.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting point on the P-51 - the last 20 gallons in the Fusalage tank was not recomended for use except in extreme emergancies because of severe CG problems.
> ...



I was primarily clarifing the earlier post, not trying to make a point. As I said earlier the numbers don't allways add up either.  

A skilled P-51 pilot could handle it if NO maneuvering took place. Climbout was always on the fusalage tank to get it down to 50gals before combat. The P-51H had the tank reduced to 50/55gal. It should also be remembered the H model was Escort Only and deemed to light to do ground attack in Korea.

I agree, at least to a point, figuring from drop tank release, combat and return through unknown conditions with 400/360gals total fuel and 1,000 miles home was probably not wise. Tom McGuire, made that "keep the Tanks" in combat error himself and we all know the result of that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 17, 2005)

RG, a note about your website and the 250 gallon tanks . . . 
110 + 180 + 120 + 500 = 1010?

Try 110 + 180 + 120 + 600 = 1010 gallons.
That would be two 300 gallon tanks and not 2 250 gallon tanks. As I said, the P-38 never carried 250 gallon tanks.

The P-51 tank was probably excluded because the tank caused major CG problems. In the ETO, the tank was often not filled to full capacity and what fuel was in the tank was often burned BEFORE switching to the drop tanks.

The P-38 leading-edge tanks could effect maneuverability, particularly rate of roll. It was for that reason that these tanks were often used for warm-up, take-off, and initial climb-out. All in all I think these tanks were less of a liability than the P-51s. They were certainly less vulnerable than the unprotected leading edge tanks carried by the F4U. It is also interesting that the external fuel carried by the Corsair was greater than it's internal fuel load ( 300 gallons external, 234 internal). If the P-38's massive drop tanks were of no advantage, neither were the Corsair's.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> A skilled P-51 pilot could handle it if NO maneuvering took place. Climbout was always on the fusalage tank to get it down to 50gals before combat. The P-51H had the tank reduced to 50/55gal. It should also be remembered the H model was Escort Only and deemed to light to do ground attack in Korea.



The fuel tanks on the P-51H were reduced to save weight. It was an Intercept plane first and foremost. It was not used in Korea not because it was deemed unsuitable, but because there were only 550 of them and parts and spares were very hard to come by. They just weren't logistically feasable for Korea. The fact is the F-51 should not have been used in Korea either, they should have dug up the P-47's for that job!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 18, 2005)

Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 18, 2005)

and considderably more expensive, out of pruduction and much harder to fly.............


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 18, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.



Yup!  

The worst thing is that a couple of monthe before the Korean war a/the last of the P-38Ls were destroyed in Korea, Martin Caiden claims to have been there!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and considderably more expensive, out of pruduction and much harder to fly.............



And more effective and versatile at least in ground attack, the last job of the piston fighters!

Which would you have picked if you were in Korea doing ground attack?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

The cheaper version that can still do the job, the F-51. You under-estimate the power of tight-fisted politicians.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 18, 2005)

I'd have rather been in the more survivable P-38L. But that may just be me.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

While I like the P-38, I have to admit for ground attack in an American WWII airplane, I would choose the Jug. That darn thing just seemed to take about any punishment dealt out and keep coming. I think the liquid cooled engines were just not as well suited due to the vulnerability of the glycol systems to ground fire.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.



Well, to be fair, the F-51 was still operationally available, the P-47's would have had to be pulled from mothballs.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

I was talking about the P-38 being too expensive but the P-47 having to be pulled out, would be more expensive than operationally available equipment. What's the better choice, F-51 (Operational and cheap), P-47 (Mothballs and cheap), P-38 (Scrapped and expensive)?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I was talking about the P-38 being too expensive but the P-47 having to be pulled out, would be more expensive than operationally available equipment. What's the better choice, F-51 (Operational and cheap), P-47 (Mothballs and cheap), P-38 (Scrapped and expensive)?



First off, the P-47 was not a "cheap" plane to build. It was quite large, it had (until the N) eliptical wings and tail structures, and a turbo-supercharger (not at all cheap to build or maintain). It was cheaper to build than the P-38, but that hardly makes it "cheap".

Secondly, I really don't think the P-47 was much of an option. At the start of the Korean war, they needed planes NOW. The F-51's were ready NOW. The P-47N's might have been ready in 6 months (which was longer than they thought the war would last), and the P-38's (as you pointed out) were simply not available at all.

The answer was to put the F-51's into action immeadiately, and then to replace them as fast as possible with more capable aircraft. Which is pretty much what was done.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

The P-47 wasn't that much cheaper than the P-38. The cost savings were mainly because the P-38 had two engines and two superchargers.

I realize that chances of the USAAF still operating P-38s in Korea were rather low (as Plan_D noted, politicians are cheap). The thing is, when US forces left South Korea in 1946 there were dozens of virtually new P-38s sitting there. Instead of turning them over to the South Koreans, they were ungloriously destroyed. Had the South Koreans had a useful ground-attack fighter, the early days of the war might have been far different.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 19, 2005)

for ground attack i'd rather take a P-47 though.........


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

That was my opinion as well, if I had to take a WWII vintage airplane into ground attack, that is what I would prefer. I wasn't saying that is what they should have done in Korea, obviously finance and immediate needs take precedent.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 19, 2005)

although at the time only very few select jets were capable of ground attack............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

Ground attack really requires an aircraft that is relatively slow and can loiter over the area. The AD-1 used in Vietnam is a good example. They also used the T-28s for ground attack and FAC duties. I saw a great program on the T-28s in Vietnam on the Discovery channel a while back.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Don't forget that the A-26/B-26 Invader was used long after it was designed for CAS missions.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

True, LG. I often forget about that one.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Ground attack really requires an aircraft that is relatively slow and can loiter over the area. The AD-1 used in Vietnam is a good example. They also used the T-28s for ground attack and FAC duties. I saw a great program on the T-28s in Vietnam on the Discovery channel a while back.



That is not entirely true. There is a place for fast attack planes and their is a place for loiterers. Ideally you want a mix of planes that can provide quick response strike capability and those that can supply tactical ground support. The Skyhawk in Vietnam was extemely effective.

It was the AH-1 in Vietnam, the Skyraider was re-designated. In Korea it was the AD-2/4 Skyraider. Skyraiders and Corsairs served side by side off carriers through most of Korea. My Dad flew about a hundred sorties in them. F-86's were also used as fast attack planes in Korea, along with F-84's and even F-80's. The F-51 mostly served at the start of the conflict.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

It has been proven that slower aircraft are better for ground attack roles, that is why they did not retire the A-10. Fast aircraft often fly past the target before they see it. With the right FAC on the ground, high speed aircraft are effective, but for a plane that is going to see out and destroy, you need a slow one.

The AH-1 is a Cobra attack helicopter. The Skyraiders in Vietnam were the A-1E, A-1H and A-1J. They also used the AD-1 in Korea.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> It has been proven that slower aircraft are better for ground attack roles, that is why they did not retire the A-10. Fast aircraft often fly past the target before they see it. With the right FAC on the ground, high speed aircraft are effective, but for a plane that is going to see out and destroy, you need a slow one.
> 
> The AH-1 is a Cobra attack helicopter. The Skyraiders in Vietnam were the A-1E, A-1H and A-1J. They also used the AD-1 in Korea.



You are right, I meant A-1H.

The AD-2 through AD-4 were used in Korea. The AD-2 had 2 x 20mm guns, the AD-4 had 4 x 20mm guns.

As I said, there is a place for both kinds of attack planes. It depends on the mission. Jets are fine for attacking fixed emplacements, in fact they are probably better as they are so much harder to hit with flak and small arms. They also can reach a point of contention much faster to deliver napalm or cluster bombs to stop an enemy advance and they can make more round trips in a shorter period of time. Slower attack planes like the Skyraider are better for close infantry support over an active battlefield. It's very situatational.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2005)

The AD-1 was also used in Korea, flown by VA-35 and VA-195 of the Navy and VMAT-20 of the USMC. These numbers are from the Skyraider association. They ought to know, they flew them.

You will also find that jets are not that much harder to hit when making an attack run. I have see footage of an A-6 bombing a ground target by dive-bombing, commonly used in Vietnam, He got hit twice by groundfire on the way in. But you stated not too long ago that flak was ineffective anyway, so it doesn't matter what you were flying with flak, right?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 20, 2005)

I saw footage of A-4 Skyhawks attacking a bridge in Vietnam, one got brought down by FlaK.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2005)

Yep, it's just a question of how much you lead the airplane, that's all.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The AD-1 was also used in Korea, flown by VA-35 and VA-195 of the Navy and VMAT-20 of the USMC. These numbers are from the Skyraider association. They ought to know, they flew them.
> 
> You will also find that jets are not that much harder to hit when making an attack run. I have see footage of an A-6 bombing a ground target by dive-bombing, commonly used in Vietnam, He got hit twice by groundfire on the way in. But you stated not too long ago that flak was ineffective anyway, so it doesn't matter what you were flying with flak, right?



AD-1's may well have flown too, earlier in the conflict. I just know for a fact my Dad flew the AD-2 on his first tour, and the AD-4 thereafter.

Let's make a distinction between "Flak", as in German flak against high altitude bombers, and AAA relatively near the ground okay? Also, by Vietnam, eveyone had proximity fuses, and they also had radar targeting systems only dreamt of in WWII.

A-6's were sometimes shot down by AAA at low altitudes, but it was not all that common and they were not nearly so vulnerable as a prop would have been. Jets are generally tougher targets to start with and they are moving much faster. Also, most of the A-6's shot down in VN were shot down by SAM's, not AAA.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

but remember some early jets couldn't take allot of punishment........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

And the A-4 I saw went down through AAA fire.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 23, 2005)

If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time. 

The reason prop aircraft are better for it is because they are slower and when you are going slower, you have a better chance of spotting what you are after, hence a better chance to hit it. Plus you can't spot artillery or call in additional FBs from a jet, you are just going to fast over the terrain to effectively spot targets. The exception being the A-10, which they nearly retired until they realized they needed a SLOW aircraft to sopt and go after ground targets.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time.



Error grows exponentially with lead, so you are much less likely to hit, even with radar tracking, if you must lead twice as much. The system also must aquire the target, which takes more time the faster it is moving, and there is less time available.



evangilder said:


> The reason prop aircraft are better for it is because they are slower and when you are going slower, you have a better chance of spotting what you are after, hence a better chance to hit it. Plus you can't spot artillery or call in additional FBs from a jet, you are just going to fast over the terrain to effectively spot targets. The exception being the A-10, which they nearly retired until they realized they needed a SLOW aircraft to sopt and go after ground targets.



This depends on the targets. As I said, there is a place for both types of attack planes. Jets have advantages, such as the ability to cover a wider area and generally speaking to carry more ordinance, props (or the A-10) have an advantage in being able to loiter longer over the battle field. Which is better for a given situation is very dependant on that situation.

Lancaster -

Even from the start Jets were generally harder to shoot down than their prop counterparts. There are only a few places within the engine that are highly vulnerable. The fuel is not nearly as combustible. And because of the placement of the Jet engines, it is often easier to use the same armor to protect critical engine sections and the pilot. Finally, Jets are generally bigger than their prop counterparts and require more internal structure, which also makes them harder to shoot down.

The 262, which was one of the weakest jets, was still harder to shoot down than most props. The USA even introduced a new .50 calibur ammo type, the M23 incendiary, specifically to shoot down jets. This ammo only had an effective range of about 175 yards, but it was very much more incendiary than earlier types. This was necessary because it was much harder to start fires on the 262 than a prop even though the thing was, to a very large extent, a flying fuel tank.

It is generally considered that even the Mig-15's were much harder to kill than WWII prop fighters. By Vietnam, Jets were very much harder to kill.

=S=

Lunatic

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2005)

I will agree that there is a place for both. The AD-1 could carry a tremendous amount of ordinance though. Laser range finders and FACs definitely increase the effectiveness of faster attack aircraft.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 26, 2005)

The role of the Pacific fighter changed from WWII to Korea. The first was aircontrol and then ground support. The latter saw the two jobs split to different airframes.F8F Bearcats did a great job at hiting the ground in Korea and even latter in Vietnam. I agree slower can give you better results but also you are getting out of the area slower, so more chance to get shot.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

The F8F only saw limited service in Korea. Most were phased out of US Navy service by 1952, replaced by modern jets. The US never flew F8Fs in Vietnam, however, the French bought some for their forces who did use them in the earlier engagement in Vietnam. 

As a ground attack airplane, it would have done okay, but carried a very limited amount of fuel. With economic cruise, your going to have 2 hours of airtime maximum.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

The F8F was also limited to just 4 5in rockets compared to the 6 of the F6F and 8 of the F4U.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Getting back to the R-2800 vs. 2 x Allisions discussion...

A little research seems to indicate that one R-2800 was generally prefered for combat durability. The problem with the allisons on the P-38 was that they were highly subject to catching fire when hit by gunfire. The main reason pilots in the pacific liked having two engines was in case of mechanical failure, not battle damage. Mechanical failure was probably as much or more of a risk to US fighter pilots in the PTO during WWII than Japanese fighters after Midway.

On the basis of this, I think the P-47 would be a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The USAAF was stupid to mothball the P-47N's after WWII until they had a suitable ground attack plane to replace them with.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

Yeah, LG, the external load was extremely light on the Bearcat. The max takeoff is actually pretty light.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Yeah, LG, the external load was extremely light on the Bearcat. The max takeoff is actually pretty light.



It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs bombs. It could only carry 4 x 5" HVAR's but that was because it simply lacked the stations for more, not that it could not be fitted to carry more. I think the reason for having 4 stations was the belief they might carry some kind of A2A missile. 2 x 2000 lbs bombs puts it on a par with the Hellcat and Mustang's load capacity.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

It _could_ carry 2 x 1000 lbs. bombs, but how far? It was either the bombs or drop tanks. WIth the minimal fuel load onboard, it would have been okay for short range attack, but that's about it. It's original design called for a fighter with excellent climb and speed. The reasons for this is it was designed to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck fast, get to the planes, get them before they get to the carrier and then get back.

If you guys want a fun article on the F8F, one of our members at the museum is John Deakin. He has a regular column on AVWeb called Pelican's Perch. Here is his article on the F8F, the one at our museum!

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

Great article. He's a cheeky sod about flying that Bearcat isn't he? I don't blame him.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

He is really a funny guy, great sense of humor. He has flown more airplane types than most people I know. He had a tremendous amount of knowledge about all of them as well. He teaches the ground school for the C-46 and checks people out on different aircraft as well. He has a callection of his stories in a book called "Full Throttle". I need to pick that up soon.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

evangilder said:


> It _could_ carry 2 x 1000 lbs. bombs, but how far? It was either the bombs or drop tanks. WIth the minimal fuel load onboard, it would have been okay for short range attack, but that's about it. It's original design called for a fighter with excellent climb and speed. The reasons for this is it was designed to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck fast, get to the planes, get them before they get to the carrier and then get back.
> 
> If you guys want a fun article on the F8F, one of our members at the museum is John Deakin. He has a regular column on AVWeb called Pelican's Perch. Here is his article on the F8F, the one at our museum!
> 
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html



I actually exchanged emails with John Deakin a few years ago. At that time he had told me he had the Bearcat Pilot Handbook in .pdf format, and was willing to send it to me, but we could not find a way to do so (it's over 10 mb so email or my personal web space would not work, and he does no do MSN or other msgr's for direct file transfer). Maybe you could talk to him and see if he can post it here? Seemed like a very nice guy.

Two points to be made about the article - the original F8F-1 had 4 x .50's (in universal bays which could also take 20mm), but these were M3's, not M2's, and had an RoF of 1200 rpm - so four of them gave the same firepower as 6 x M2's. Also, in 1945 in WWII 150 Av-Gas was available giving even more HP than that listed.

I agree range would be short. But only short range is needed if you're supporting an invasion such as Okinawa. And with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank on the belly and 2 x 100 gallon drop tanks on the wings, patrol range is not really that short. It was well suited to its primary mission, which was to provide CAP for carrier fleets. With a good 4+ hours on drop tanks it had pleanty of flight time for this mission.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

I will see if I can find him next time I am out at the museum. He is a very busy guy these days and doesn't come around as much. He is a great guy, and very knowledgable. He was our wing safety officer for awhile as well. He taught us how to put out aircraft fires. Fortunately, we have never had to do that!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

I would love to see that info on the Bearcar if someone could get it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Make that the Bearcat.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 29, 2005)

Evenglider, that artical is nice. I have read some of his others and for got how I liked them.

Also thanks for clearing up my por info on the F8F.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

No problem. I don't like to knit-pick, but I think we all are here to learn more. I know I have been corrected as well, and it's all good. I like having the right information. Nothing is more of a crime to history than to perpetuate a wrong fact. I like your siggy pic, BTW.

Quick trivia...What's a quick and easy visual way to see the difference between the B-24 and the LB-30?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

If I knew what the LB-30 was, I could tell you!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 30, 2005)

No top turret on the LB-30?
BTW CC, an LB-30 was the version of the B-24 used for pilot ferrying over the Atlantic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Ah thanks, Ill google it and see what I can find


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

ACtually the LB-30 literally meant Liberator, British. The pic in Willow's siggy is really an LB-30. I guess that was not really a clear question, there are a number of differences. The main one is the export versions of the Liberator _typically_ had round nacelles, the non-export ones had oval nacelles. There are a number of exceptions, but the real LB-30s had round nacelles. The turrets did change a bit through the models.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 30, 2005)

The PB4Y2 also had oval nacelles. They were oriented the other way however with the oil cooler scoops above and below the engine instead of to either side.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

Yep, it's hard to keep track of all the mods sometimes.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2005)

Nice Liberator pics, evan. (Thanks for the RCAF pic.  )
The markings on the RCAF example are definitely post war. They're of the 1965-67 variety.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Yeah that RCAF One is a good pic. I think ill save that to my computer. 8)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

Glad you guys liked the shots. I liked the RCAF shot because I hadn't seen anything like that one. Plus it's nice to recognize our neighbors to the North! 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

Who? Scotland?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 31, 2005)

Yes. Scotland. Well, for us I guess it'd be Russia. Then again, for them I guess it'd be Canada. Alaska too, so the States would be included there.  

 I need a rest!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

what, to much thinking again?? you've been warned about that before..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 31, 2005)

Yes sir.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 2, 2005)

Evenglider, Yes all that of the LB-30 is true. People forget that it like the PBY were greated for the British first, well the PBY got its name from them as did the Liberater. The B-24 was more the production m,odel that USAAC started to use as it was needed. 

Keep all the nice pics coming


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

Heres a nice shot of the B-24 in your sig in flight


----------



## evangilder (Feb 4, 2005)

Nice!


----------



## Viper (Feb 4, 2005)

i think the corsair rules everything else out on the list...
thats a nice shot of a 24


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

I went for the -38. Shot down more Japs than any other plane...and so what if thats only cos it was around longer, It was well advanced for it time...Im surprised its ahead of the F6F in the poll actually.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 5, 2005)

Viper said:


> i think the corsair rules everything else out on the list...
> thats a nice shot of a 24



I wholeheartedly agree with both of those statements. 8)


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 6, 2005)

> Away, way back on Sat Dec 4, 04 at 10:39 am
> the lancaster kicks ass posted:
> 
> “the B-25 never landed on the carrier, it only took off from there.........”



Huh? then what are these guys doing aboard USS Shangri-La on November 15, 1944?

PBJ-1, BuNo 35277 (x USAAF B-25H 43-4700) piloted by Lieut. Comdr. Syd Bottomley traps aboard 
in picture 1, taxis out of the arrestor gear in picture 2 and is readied for catapult launch in picture 3.

















Regards,

Rich

7 Feb - replaced original shots with somewhat smaller versions, I didn't realize the first ones would be 
so big. This should help the load time . . . oh yeah, much better.

RL


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 6, 2005)

> And also way back on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:11 pm
> lesofprimus posted:
> 
> “Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U.......”



Really? How many? Both the F6F and the F4U had opportunities to engage the N1K. 1945 official USN results of combat for each type:

F6F vs N1K series - 28 to 0
F4U or FG vs N1K series - 7 to 0
So, the way the USN figures it, 35 Shinden’s shot down to no losses. 

You need to take care with Japanese claims. Essentially, if they shot at a plane and then lost sight of it, it was considered shot down. By 1944 most all USN claims were verified through gun camera film.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 6, 2005)

I've never seen those PBJ-1 pictures before. That's pretty cool! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Hell yeah, GREAT pictures RL! 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 6, 2005)

RL, Where did you find the pictures? Is there any story to go with them?

P-38 why not! It was there a long time and did a lot for the Army!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> > And also way back on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:11 pm
> > lesofprimus posted:
> >
> > “Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U.......”
> ...



That is very true!

The Japanese, espeically during the Solomans campaign (i.e. Guadacanal) are often quoted as having said things like "we keep shooting them down, but they replace them even faster". In fact, the Japanese would hit an American plane and assume it was killed when what was happening was the damaged plane would dive away from combat, return to base, and be flying again in a few days. And even when planes were lost more often than not the pilot survived. The Japanese never had the success they though they were having.

The Japanese assumed that because a few hits was all it took to kill their own planes, that was all it would take to kill a US plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 6, 2005)

> MP-Willow posted on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:36 pm
> RL, Where did you find the pictures? Is there any story to go with them?


Lieutenant Commander Syd Bottomley, who had earlier served as XO of VB-3 at the Battle of Midway and then succeeded Max Leslie as squadron CO when Leslie fleeted up to CAG-3, was assigned to the Ship Experimental Unit of the Naval Aircraft Factory at Mustin Field, Philadelphia in the fall of 1943. The SEU was responsible for the evaluation and testing of catapult and arresting gear engines and associated handling equipment designed for shipboard and small field use. Bottomley was charged with the operation and maintenance of the test aircraft assigned to projects by the Bureau of Aeronautics and preparation of test aircraft reports, including evaluating carrier suitability portions of the Board of Inspection and Survey trials of new prototype aircraft. Assisting him were Lieutenants Bob Elder and Charlie Lane who had served with him in VB-3 and whom Bottomley dragooned away from the training command.

Among the projects under Bottomley’s charge at SEU were the modifications of the P-38, P-39 and P-40 with catapult hooks by NAF for launching from jeep carrier transports. After modifications were completed it was Bottomley and company’s place to make catapult shots to determine feasibility, trim tab and flap settings and check flight characteristics. Soon they were also given a modified P-47, P-51, and even a P-61 for catapult feasibility testing. The Bureau of Aeronautics already knew that B-25’s could be launched from carriers, but wanted to know if they could be launched with catapults and so provided SEU with a Marine Corps PBJ-1H (BuNo 35277) which the Corps had acquired from the USAAF. The PBJ-1H was the same as the cannon armed B-25H, and, indeed, this particular airplane had started its life as USAAF 43-4700. 

Much of their activities involved testing the tricycle landing geared Grumman F7F Tigercat. No tricycle gear aircraft had ever been in carrier service and there was great concern over possible fuselage and nose damage resulting from the stress of off-center landings with a fixed, non-swiveling tailhook. Charlie Lane was project pilot and lost no time in demonstrating what an uneven cable friction load could do to the skin and frame of a nose-wheeled airplane. It was apparent that the arrestor hook needed to be relocated further forward and have swivel capability if the F7F was to ever carrier qualify. To further prove their points of hook location and swivel, Bottomley sought and received permission for BuAer to include their PBJ-1H in catapult and shipboard handling tests. An SBD tail hook assembly(the SBD was considered to have the most reliable tailhook arrangement) was installed on the PBJ and it was readied for further testing. In land based tests conducted at USCGAS Cape May an unexpected problem appeared: with full-flight engagement of the arresting gear, the single pilot's seat lock would disengage and let the pilot and seat slide forward onto the yoke. This was a big surprise the first time it happened and certainly not a happy event for Bottomley. As a solution, a steel strap was welded to the top of the seat from the bulkhead behind the pilot to keep the seat in place.

On November 15, 1944, three aircraft were successfully tested for arrested landings and catapult launches aboard USS Shangri-La. Charlie Lane successfully demonstrated the results of relocating the swivel arrestor hook on the F7F. Bob Elder put an arrestor hook equipped P-51 through its paces. 

And then it was Bottomley’s turn in the PBJ. Bottomley told the story: 

“ . . . it was amazing how easily the PB| swung into the groove and picked up a wire. The ensuing catapult shot was a breeze, as was the next landing. Then the PBJ was struck below for handling tests on the hangar deck. The main wheels had been designed to turn sideways to ease the plane into tight spots, so BuAer and AirLant staff observers were all over, in and under the PBJ.
“Everything had gone so well it was determined no further shipboard tests were necessary and I taxied into position on the catapult. I had planned to take just the plane captain, Koffel, and Chief Photo Mate Hicks back to Philadelphia direct from the ship. However, Lieutenant Jim Daniels, the SEU catapult officer, talked me into letting him ride over the bottom hatch below the cockpit with Koffel. Chief Hicks sat in the cannoneer seat to my right.
“When the catapult fired, the yoke flew out of my hands as the pilot's seat slid back into the bulkhead, doubling up the steel jury straps that were only designed to keep the seat from moving forward. Some observer on the ship had apparently tried to adjust the pilot seat position and the latch had never re-positioned in its track slot. There we were, airborne off the bow with no one near the controls. But thank God for Jim Daniels! Jim had played tackle for the Georgia Tech Rose Bowl team immortalized by "Wrong Way" Right. With one shove of his mighty arm that seat went back along the tracks into position where I could grab the yoke and reach the wheels-up lever. We then departed for NAS Norfolk, landing an hour later none the worse for our experience.”

Syd Bottomley left SEU in June 1945 and naval career attaining the rank of Captain. In the course of his wartime service he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Distinguished Flying Cross with Gold Star, six Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation. His campaign awards include: American Defense Service Medal, Fleet Clasp; American Campaign Medal; and the World War II Victory Medal. 

Bob Elder waiting for launch signal P-51D BuNo 57987 (x USAAF 44-14017) 15 Nov 44, USS Shangri-La





Bob Elder deck launches 





Charlie Lane’s F7F (BuNo 80291) aboard USS Shangri-La, 15 Nov 44.





Photos and most of the info from an old The Hook, Winter 1978, also long ago chat with Bob Elder 

Philly, huh? Lived there, actually Langhorne, for a year in the early 80’s. Used to go out to the Willow Grove NAS to watch the P-3s come in and go out. Always reminded me of growing up at various NAS around the country. Game just ended. I was disappointed. 

Regards,

Rich


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 15, 2005)

Well ok, I really do like the help for looking at the B-24. On looking I found a nice picture that i wanted to share, it is not a B-24, but you can all take a gess at it 

That Tigercat picture is nice. A great plane that was engulfed by the jet!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 15, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I went for the -38. Shot down more Japs than any other plane...and so what if thats only cos it was around longer, It was well advanced for it time...Im surprised its ahead of the F6F in the poll actually.



I Agree completely even if the records that survived are not complete enough to back it up. The P-38 was the plane!

Great stuff Rich, I'm a B-25 fan and never came accross anything like that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Thanks wm 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 19, 2005)

C.C, Why you so surprised?
The P-38 was just great 

The P47 and F6F both should get good reviews. Also the P-40 was around just as long or realy longer then the P-38, so please think of it. I realy like that one just because it got so mch out of it. 

Qustion what do you al think about the Spitfire at it's time in the Pacific?


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 5, 2005)

There seem to be other planes missing from the poll. How about kawasaki ki-61? or the ki-100?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 5, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> There seem to be other planes missing from the poll. How about kawasaki ki-61? or the ki-100?



Those planes were okay, but clearly not in the class of the N1K2 or KI-84.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 5, 2005)

The pol was created with some thought, the ki-100 and ki-61, two of the Jaonese designs I like are late commers and were not to have a great impact. But if the war were to have gone on and assuming Japan could find production space the N1J2 would have given the B-29s ad even the P-51H problums.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 6, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> The pol was created with some thought, the ki-100 and ki-61, two of the Jaonese designs I like are late commers and were not to have a great impact. But if the war were to have gone on and assuming Japan could find production space the N1J2 would have given the B-29s ad even the P-51H problums.



What? With a top speed of 363 mph, mediorcre climb performance, and serious power loss at altitude, the Kawanishi N1K2 "George" was no match for a competently piloted P-51D (437+ mph) or an F4U-1d (425+ mph), let alone a P-51H (480 mph) or F4U-4 (463 mph - 448 with capped pylons as on all service units). The George was however a fairly good matach against an F6F-5 Hellcat (380 mph).

It could not fly high enough to successfully intercept the B-29, and it was totally outclassed by the P-51H in virtually every catagory.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 7, 2005)

ok mybe I was reading somwthing elts. Or that information as wrong. but I do remember reading that thy were developing and had produce I small nubers planes that could deal with the new USAAC and USN fighters. But thanks for corecting me on my wayward thoughts


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Trying to develop is more accurate, all that is based upon the engines performing to design specs, but repeatedly Japanese engines failed to do so. They even had jets in the works, though none were deployed anywhere with working engines.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 11, 2005)

RG, that is true, they did have engine problums in almost all of the aircraft types.

I have a question for you we have all said what we liked but maybe weshould have stated this topic at just Pacific Fighters. What do you think?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 11, 2005)

???? 

I don't understand the ?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 14, 2005)

ok would it be better to have titled this just Pacific fighters? We could have talked bout all of them, and not sem to focus on the "Best" ones.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

We can talk about other Pacific Fighters if you like. It isnt wildly off the topic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 15, 2005)

So CC, nice Sig picture! I would ask then your thoughts and those of thee others here of the P-47 in the Pacific


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

not enough range........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

WIth drop tanks, the P-47N had a range of 2350 miles. Joe Baugher has a good write-up on the P-47N at:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

evangilder said:


> WIth drop tanks, the P-47N had a range of 2350 miles. Joe Baugher has a good write-up on the P-47N at:
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html



According to the P-47N manual a plane fitted with two 165 gallon wing drop tanks and one 110 belly drop tank had a range of 2920 miles. Accounting 90 gallons for combat, this would reduce this range figure to about 2750 miles. Because only 1120 miles of the range figure is from external tanks, and 1800 (or 1630 accounting for combat usage) is from internal fuel, the combat radius is half the range figure.

It was also possible to carry two 300 gallon wing drop tanks (it is unclear if a 110 belly tank could also be carried), which would have extended range to about 3400 miles.

The P-47N was the longest range fighter of WWII.

=S=

Lunatic

Source:
PILOT TRAINING MANUAL FOR THE THUNDERBOLT P-47N
Hq. Army Air Forces, Washinting 25, D. C., 1 Sep 45


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

wow them's good pics, although in the combat shot it does look like a P-47 shooting annother P-47..........


----------



## acesman (Mar 16, 2005)

Since the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane, and was a land-based figher to boot (meaning it did not have a floating airfield to deliver it to enemy territory) I have to go with proven performance vs speculation. Also, the P-38 was continually upgraded, and the P-38L-1-LO was the longest ranged American fighter of the war, with a combat radius of 1500 miles (this I discovered on a site about the P-47N!)


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

I wouldn't call the P-47N a speculation. Testing had shown it quite capable, and it was beginning to see action when the war ended. The 1,500 mile radius number on the P-38 is under ideal conditions. Yes, the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes, but it was also in the war longer. The P-38 had a lot of bugs that had to be worked out before it was really a viable fighter. Don't get me wrong, I like the P-38. But after studying it, the Hellcat and the Corsair, I would have to say the Corsair was the best Pacific fighter.

Editted to correctly state the P-47N, not the P-38N...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

acesman said:


> Since the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane, and was a land-based figher to boot (meaning it did not have a floating airfield to deliver it to enemy territory) I have to go with proven performance vs speculation. Also, the P-38 was continually upgraded, and the P-38L-1-LO was the longest ranged American fighter of the war, with a combat radius of 1500 miles (this I discovered on a site about the P-47N!)



Range was up to 3000 miles, using 330 gallon. That is far from combat radius, which appears to have been more in the area of 900-1000 miles.

The P-47N was a late entry to the war, so it didn't rack up the kills of the P-38. That does not make the P-38 a better plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

Once a P-38F, fully armed, flew over 3300 miles non stop. Ill try and find the site.


----------



## acesman (Mar 16, 2005)

Lets see, the P-38 was designed in 1937, and the combat version entered active service in May 1941. The P-47N was developed in 1944 and entered service in 1945. Considerable strides were made between first generation WWII aircraft (1939-1941) and last generation WWII aircraft (1943-45). And yet the P-38 flew air superiority missions till the last day of the war, and the P-47 flew in the Pacific theater after Japanese air power had been broken. The P-47N was a fine aircraft that had no chance to prove it's mettle in the Pacific. The P-38 compiled a fine record in the Pacific, even with early bugs and being improperly used (trying to get in a turning match with a Zero). And given its longevity, I believe that it was the best Pacific Theater fighter, and probably one of the most significant planes in the theater.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

The P-38 could actually hold its own in a turning fight with a Zero. It has been reported than Bong turned inside Zeros at fairly low speeds.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 16, 2005)

> Since the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane



Sez Who? And how many was that?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

It all depends on which era of the pacific war- early or late because there's an awful lot of difference between a Brewster Buffalo and a Corsair in production techniques. Just look at the RAF, they were using biplanes as fighters in 1940 and in 1945 we were using jets


----------



## acesman (Mar 17, 2005)

Quote:

Since the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane




> Sez Who? And how many was that?



Don't know how many, the stat is according to the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) and US Department of Defense records. This is not surprising since the Lightning was one of the main (and often THE main) USAAC fighters for three+ years in the Pacific Theater.


----------



## acesman (Mar 17, 2005)

> The P-38 could actually hold its own in a turning fight with a Zero. It has been reported than Bong turned inside Zeros at fairly low speeds.



Perhaps. And later models of the Zero and Lightning may have performed differently that early models. Supposedly the early Lightnings would use more of a "boom and zoom" technique. But Bong was also an exceptional pilot, and that could make a difference.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

> Don't know how many, the stat is according to the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) and US Department of Defense records. This is not surprising since the Lightning was one of the main (and often THE main) USAAC fighters for three+ years in the Pacific Theater.



To which USAAF records do you refer? 

And since there was no DoD at the time, I presume you mean the War Department. To which War Department or, if you wish, even DoD, records do you refer?

Regards,

Rich


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

I believe the Hellcat was the #1 killer of Japanese planes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

> I believe the Hellcat was the #1 killer of Japanese planes.




That is certainly my impression.

1st Place: F6F with 5163 (just bombers and fighters)
2d Place: F4U with 2138 (just bombers and fighters)
3d Place: P-38 with 1700 (all types)

And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.

Rich


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Ive never read anything other than that the P-38 scored the most against the Japanese. Where'd you get that information?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

no all information you have posted has the P-38 down for the most jap planes CLAIMED..........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ive never read anything other than that the P-38 scored the most against the Japanese. Where'd you get that information?



That is because you missed the part that said 'USAAF'.


----------



## acesman (Mar 18, 2005)

> 1st Place: F6F with 5163 (just bombers and fighters)
> 2d Place: F4U with 2138 (just bombers and fighters)
> 3d Place: P-38 with 1700 (all types)
> 
> And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.


----------



## acesman (Mar 18, 2005)

> 1st Place: F6F with 5163 (just bombers and fighters)
> 2d Place: F4U with 2138 (just bombers and fighters)
> 3d Place: P-38 with 1700 (all types)
> 
> And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.



Could you please cite your source? If possible give a URL


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never read anything other than that the P-38 scored the most against the Japanese. Where'd you get that information?
> ...



That is most likely.


----------



## acesman (Mar 18, 2005)

I will quote wmaxt from the "p51 vs p47" poll



> In the MTO and the Pacific The P-38 was the best. Historians credit it with 5,730+ in the PTO and 608 in the MTO ( included in the 2,500). Considering they did this while doing Close escort, ground attack and more experienced adversaries And less aircraft 10,000 P-38s (8,200+ kills total for the war) to 15,000+ p-51s (5,932 kills for the war) and 16,000 P-47s (7,000+ kills for the war) is even more remarkable.



R Leonard said



> 1st Place: F6F with 5163 (just bombers and fighters)
> 2d Place: F4U with 2138 (just bombers and fighters)
> 3d Place: P-38 with 1700 (all types)
> 
> And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.



There seems to be considerable differences in the numbers, and by the first quote, the F6F/F4U combined comes in second place. I have not been able to to attribute any of the above numbers, but what I have found is that one fighter group, the 475th (top scoring Group in the war), accounted for over 550 enemy planes. This would seem to raise doubt about your number of 1700, since there were many fighter groups using P-38's during the Pacific War.

BTW, what is the Southwest Pacific? I have heard South Pacific used often, but I do not recall hearing Southwest Pacific except to refer to Australia/Nwe Zealand


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Good points acesman. Those are similar statistics to what I have read.


----------



## acesman (Mar 18, 2005)

http://usfighter.tripod.com/

The site listed above has some stats about many of the US fighters in this poll. According to them, and their quoted sources, the Hellcat racked up 5,156 kills and a very impressive 19:1 kill ratio. This is all F6F's, Navy, Marine and Land Based(?). They are credited (by the Navy) with nearly 80% of all enemy planes shot down by friendly aircraft.

The P-38 is also mentioned, as credited with the most Japanese planes killed, although numbers were not given on that page.

There have always been differences in the numbers, and to add to the mix, late in the War in the Pacific, credit was given for enemy aircraft on the GROUND! I believe the pure numbers are not as relevant as the longevity, total contribution and adaptability of an airframe. I have no problem with saying that the P-38 is the finest Army fighter, and the F6F was the finest Navy fighter, over the course of the Pacific War (1941-1945)


----------



## acesman (Mar 18, 2005)

Clarification of previous post; the Hellcat is credited with nearly 80% of Navy/Marine air-to-air kills.[/u]


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 18, 2005)

Yeah, but maybe you should read that whole thread, as that line of claim, IMHO thoroughly debunked.

I defy you to find an official USAF source, on or off the internet, that quotes the 5730+ number for the P-38. What you’re reading is shear aficionado BS. 

I am still waiting for you to produce an official source.

My numbers come from official USAAF and USN sources. Let’s see you do that.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine, afterall, I asked first.

Oh, and contrary to your belief, aircraft destroyed on the ground were not counted as air to air victories. Did they keep track of planes destroyed on the ground? Oh sure, but as an order of battle intelligence exercise. Never were they added to some pilot's official score. You have been misinformed. Or perhaps you have an official source for that claim as well?

And you might want to read up on your WWII history. You just might discover that the Southwest Pacific Theater was that under the command of General MacArthur.


Regards,

Rich


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Actually, they did give credit for ground kills through the 2nd half of the war, to encourage pilots to go down and strafe them.

Then, after the war, they changed their minds and these kills were not credited.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 19, 2005)

Not in the Navy. And I can't find anything that indicates the Army did, either. As far as I know the only folks who got credit for ground kills were the AVG. Do you have an official source for that? I'd be interesting in seeing it.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> Not in the Navy. And I can't find anything that indicates the Army did, either. As far as I know the only folks who got credit for ground kills were the AVG. Do you have an official source for that? I'd be interesting in seeing it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rich



I don't think there is an official source, it was never actually "official". What I remember is they were told ground kills would count - but then they wern't. This may only have been for the USAAF in Europe, I'm not sure.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 19, 2005)

> There seems to be considerable differences in the numbers, and by the first quote, the F6F/F4U combined comes in second place. I have not been able to to attribute any of the above numbers, but what I have found is that one fighter group, the 475th (top scoring Group in the war), accounted for over 550 enemy planes. This would seem to raise doubt about your number of 1700, since there were many fighter groups using P-38's during the Pacific War


. 

475 Fighter Group was indeed a high scoring FG, but I sure wouldn’t go extrapolating the performance of all fighter groups based on a single example. That’s not a very good statistical analysis practice or technique. 475 FG consisted of 431, 432, and 433 Fighter Squadrons. Their records can be located in the National Archives on microfilms A0807 and A0808. Reports consist of M1065/3 - 0703 to end; M1065/4 - 0005 to 0631; M1065/8 - 0070 to 0591; and M1065/9 - 0005 to 0760. Squadron records indicate:
431st Fighter Squadron: 221 confirmed / 14 probable / 7.5 damaged
432nd Fighter Squadron: 167 / 21 / 14
433rd Fighter Squadron: 121 / 23 / 12
Totals: 509 / 38 / 33.5

Well, let’s see . . .
VF-2 in two deployments, 11/43 to 1/44 aboard CV-6 and 3/44 to 9/44 aboard CV-12, results were 246 / 34 / 2. That’s as good as any of the 475 FG squadrons. VF-9’s final roll-up count was 256.75 / 31 / 55. Do I need to go on? Okay, there were 24 USN fighter squadrons with more than 100 confirmed credits, most of which, BTW, were F6F squadrons (VBF-1, VF-2, VF-3, VF-5, VF-6, VF-8, VF-9, VF-10, VF-11, VF-14, VF-15, VF-16, VBF-17, VF-17, VF-18, VF-19, VF-20, VF-21, VF-27, VF-29, VF-30, VF-31, VF-80 and VF-83. Five squadrons posted more than 200 victories: VF-10 (217 / 23.5 / 26); VF-18 (250.5 / 33 / 16); VF-9 (256.75 / 31 / 55); VF-15 (310 / 34 / 28.5) and VF-17 (313 / 48 / 48).

Comparatively, there were 13 USAAF squadrons in the Pacific that scored in excess of 100 aerial credits (7 FS, 8 FS, 9 FS, 35 FS, 39 FS, 40 FS, 44 FS, 80 FS, 339 FS, 342 FS, 431 FS, 432 FS, and 433 FS. Four FS achieved more that 200 victory credits: 8 FS (207 / 23 / 17); 80 FS (213 / 57 / 11); 431 FS (above); and 9 FS (254 / 63 / 20).

The breakdown of aerial victories in the Pacific by USAAF aircraft type goes something like:
P-38 = 1,700
P-47 = 697
P-40 = 661
P-51/F-6 = 297
P-39/P-400 = 288
P-61 = 64
P-36 = 3
P-70 = 2
P-26 = 2
P-35 = 1
Total = 3,715

That’s it, that’s all, there weren’t any more, no 5730 shootdowns by P-38’s, not even 5730 total shootdowns. All derived from from USAAF records. Not some aficionado’s website. Believe what you wish, but the truth shall set you free. 

Show me an official USAF source that says different.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 19, 2005)

> I don't think there is an official source, it was never actually "official". What I
> remember is they were told ground kills would count - but then they wern't. This may only have
> been for the USAAF in Europe, I'm not sure.



Somehow I think that some folks, not necessarily you, but some who draw some odd conclusions 
and then spread them as fact, don't really understand how this works. Talking about what one pilot 
or another might have been told he could or could not claim is apples and oranges when you’re talking 
about the number of enemy planes shot down by a given type. What pilots were told or not told or 
even what they believed or did not believe has absolutely nothing to do with the final results of the 
conflict. It is a very large error to mistake one for the other. An understanding of the process 
and the administrative flow is the key to understanding what the numbers mean. In USN and USAAF 
service, each mission required a report from each pilot. The division leader (and I’m going to use 
USN terms as those are the ones with which I am most comfortable, but, rest assured, there were 
USAAF counterparts) was also required to complete an ACA (AirCraft Action) report which was 
used to draw up the squadron report and was included as an annex thereto. This ACA detailed 
combat action . . . aerial combat, strafing attacks, whatever occurred in the course of a mission 
(USAAF equivalent was the MR - Mission Report). These ACA’s and the squadron report were the 
basis of the Air Group report and so on up the line. So, in the grand scheme if Ensign Dilbert 
Knothead strafed and was deemed to have destroyed a Betty on some jungle strip it would certainly 
be noted in the ACA, but never as a part of tally of credits for Mr. Knothead. The purpose of 
tracking ground kills was, as I said earlier, an order of battle issue. There were those who toiled 
away in sweaty little offices whose sole purpose was to figure out what the enemy had and where 
did they have it. So if they’ve figured out where such and such squadron is operating, and that base 
gets hit, and the report comes back that XYZ aircraft were destroyed on the ground then these folks 
can start looking for indications (intercepted messages and so on) that XYZ squadron has taken a 
serious hit and needs some replacements. A few folks have tendency to believe that VF-x ACA #32 
detailing Mr. Knothead’s thorough drubbing of that Betty parked on the strip at Noname Island means 
that Mr. Knothead was credited with some sort of victory simply because it is mentioned. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. Pilots were required to report all actions on missions with enemy 
contact, air, ground, water, didn’t matter. And there was a whole system in place for follow up to these 
reports, from squadron ACIO, to Air Group ACIO, to TF Staff, to Fleet Staff, to CinC Staff. I can tell 
you from practical experience that military organizations are positively anal when it comes to reporting, 
be it a morning report or an after action report. It will be completed and it will be submitted and it will be 
forwarded, or else.

I always get skeptical when I hear the great “they” when “they” were told this or that, or “they” told “them” 
this or that without any attribution. Who are “they?” Name three, specifically, and what exactly did 
they say or tell you? 

That’s why I tend to be a little short with those who look to a statement on someone else’s website as an 
authoritative citation. I can show you mistakes on web sites, hell’s bell’s, I can show you great big mistakes 
in otherwise scholarly books that author’s, no doubt, spent years researching, where one of their 
references misinterpreted one his references, who misinterpreted his reference, who simply did not 
understand what was being said. 

Here’s a homework assignment: July 28, 1945 . . . carrier planes from Task Force 38 strike various 
remaining Japanese fleet units. What were the results of these strikes? Specifically, how many USN planes 
and pilots were lost? You tell me what everyone else says and I’ll tell you what REALLY happened.

So, when I read some say the USAAF says the P-38 was the highest scoring plane in the Pacific, I say 
show me. What am I to think when someone says the P-38 scored more aerial victories than the total 
credited to the USAAF in the Pacific? What am I to think when I’m sitting here looking at the actual USAAF 
numbers and the actual USN numbers and the person making the claim is saying things like “I heard . . .” 
or “I’ve seen . . .” but can’t say where or who? What am I to think when the numbers quoted have no 
basis in reality when compared to the official results. The truth is out there.

All the figures I use, again, come from _*official *_USN and USAAF sources, most in their original form. None 
of the answers are going to jump off the page at you. You have to work for the knowledge. You might 
even have to get out a pencil and do a little figuring. But, as far as the internet is concerned, if the 
information comes from _*official*_ USN and USAF websites and consists of period documents, then you 
may presume it was the official thinking of the time. You want to know how many planes the USAAF 
destroyed on the ground in the Pacific (which by the way, the USAAF defined as the Far East - which 
corresponds to MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific Command - the Central Pacific, and the Aleutians)? I 
can give you that number. I have it, right here at my finger tips, took me all of three minutes to conjure 
it up, again from the USAAF documents, but wouldn’t be more enlightening for you guys to 
figure it out for yourselves?

So, show me yours and I’ll show you mine. Someone needs to show me DoD, or USAF, or USN reference 
that supports their contention(s), anything else is just floating internet fluff. I’ve been playing with USN 
operations analysis of Pacific Theater aviation results as a hobby for more years than I care to count. I 
have a closet full of boxes of documents and reports and a pretty good idea of what’s in each of them. 
When I can’t find the answer to an operational question, of the USN variety, I can turn to the nice 
old man who lives with me, a retired RAdm who was there, a fighter pilot, an ace, and a senior staff officer 
in the Ops Shop of TF-38, who remembers more than all the documents I could muster. 

The challenge still stands . . . official figures vs the, frankly, outrageous. Show me the money!!


Regards,

Rich


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

Rich,
I have asked you to cite your source. ONE souuce! So far much vitriol has been spilled for your precious USN fighters, without any of the proof you seem to demand. I have cited sources, and you can take issue with them, I have asked for the same and have seen NOTHING. ONE URL that backs up your claim. ONE book (Title and Author alone will suffice).


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

For reference on how many aircraft the USAAF said were shot down, by theater and area, check the following URL:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html

According to official USAAF records available on that site (on PDF documents)
the USAAF shot down the following:

Feb 1942-Aug 1945 Far East Air Forces - 4,502 enemy destroyed in air
Jul 1943-Aug 1945 Pacific Ocean Areas - 575 enemy destroyed in air
Jul 1942-Aug 1945 China and India-Burma - 1,202 enemy destroyed in air
June 1942-Aug 1945 Alaska - 89 enemy destroyed in air

Why the first months of the war are not covered at all is not known. I suspect that victories then were few, but not non-existent.

By the numbers posted, the USAAF shot down over 6,368 enemy aircraft in the PTO from Feb 1942-August 1945, not the 3,715 claimed earlier in this poll.


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

Did some more digging, for US Navy aircraft official WWII records, go to:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-7.htm


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

Ask and you shall receive, but I'd point out that your single cited source was one person’s undocumented comment in another discussion thread. Hardly what I would call a definitive source.

But, okay, if that’s the best you can do, I guess that’s the best you can do. Try these on for size . . .

I would suggest you check out the “Army Air Force Statistical Digest” (1947) published by the USAAF. You can 
find it in it’s original form here, in a downloadable PDF format at this official USAF web site:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_index_table.html

I would particularly call your attention to tables 169, 170, and 172 for the overall Pacific Theater victory credits for 
the USAAF. CBI Theater results are in table 171.

For quick reference, I use an Excel version somewhat laboriously created about five years ago from PDFs of the 
original, but it allows me to extract data of interest I want into sub-tables of my own design for further analysis. 
You may wish to create your own tables for quick calculations.

If you prefer, you can look here, where some kind soul has gone to the trouble of making this rather lengthy 
document easier to read:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/

The tables of interest remain the same.

In 1957 the USAAF produced a WWII victories analysis, listing each pilot credited with a victory by name and 
victories posted per combat date. Admittedly this is a little hard to deal with in an alphabetical order, but an 
hour’s or so work and you can cut and paste it into a spread sheet format. Once you’ve done that you 
can sort by theater to divide things up by ETO, MTO, PTO, and CBI. This is part of the overall USAF Aerial 
Victories Credits listing located at

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_index.html

For the 1957 listing of WWII USAAF credits, you can go directly to 

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_wwii_index.html

If you have an interest in US Naval Aviation in WWII, may I recommend “Naval Aviation Combat 
Statistics” (1947). This document is also available on line as a PDF at the USN Historical Center website at 

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

I would recommend a complete reading of the document, but for just the basics in USN credits I refer you to 
Table 1, which conveniently enough provides the consolidated summary of operations. Of course you can save 
the document to your machine once you bring it up. I would offer some caution on this, a very few of the more 
detailed interior tables have some very minor calculation errors which are probably the result of typographic errors. 
Putting the tables into a spread sheet and re-working the calculations will correct these. I'll let you discover them 
on your own.

On the printed side, if you really want to invest some bucks, though I doubt you’ll find many copies on the 
market, you can try to find a copy of Frank Olynyk’s WWII victory listings. He’s produced a bunch … 
USAAF (ETO, MTO, CBI, PTO), USN, and USMC. These listings are by date and time and are drawn from 
the actual squadron records. He also cross-references the listings by squadron and individual pilot. Olynyk, 
if you are not familiar with his work, is generally recognized as the leading authority on USAAF and 
USN/USMC aerial victories. His work is based on meticulous research over many years, back into the 1970's 
at least, with the survivors of those days and comparison of the original US reports (not summaries) with the 
information from the opposition. His 668 page tour-de-force reporting on US aces “Stars and Bars, A tribute 
to the American Fighter Ace 1920-1973” is generally regarded in serious aviation historian circles, and the 
American Fighter Aces Association, as the definitive work in the subject.

I find Olynyk’s work to be a better detailed than the information provided by the USAF, so I tend to lean in 
his direction and use his numbers Plus he gives a somewhat higher number than either the Statistical Digest 
or the 1957 victories compilation.

Certainly the P-38 leads the way for the USAAF, but there's not even 5,730 total victories much less 5,730 for 
just the P-38. With a little work on your part you will discover that Olynyk's total is obviously more than the 
totals one can derive from the either the USAAF Statistical Digest or the USAF 1957 credits for the PTO (+602 and 
+35, respectively). 

In any case, there’s three numbers, one 1947 USAAF (3,113), one 1957 USAF (3,680), and one from modern, 
and well respected, scholarship (3,715), representing an accounting of ALL fighter victories in the SWPA, POA 
and the Aleutians, the three sub-areas that the USAAF considered to make up the PTO. None even approach 
the number, 5,730, you've raised just for P-38s in the same area. And neither the USAAFSD total of 847 victories 
nor the 1957 review total of 1,117 victories for the CBI come close to pushing the total over the top. The best 
I can at this point get is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,832 if I add the higher of the two CBI numbers I 
have to Olynyk’s higher PTO number . . . still about 898 short of 5,730 and again that’s all victories for all 
fighter/pursuit types.

So, the if you want to talk REAL numbers, okay, but I suggest you do some serious study and steering away 
from other's imaginations. If you do, You’ll find that in the Pacific the “precious” USN F6F by far exceeded 
the P-38, specifically, and the USAAF total, generally, in scores. Period.

Please note the use of _*official*_ USAF and USN sources. None of these sites are any great secret and their information has been available for years.

Are they not good enough for you? Are they just too hard to work with? Would you rather just get your "facts" from 
someone else's undocumented and unsupported claims? 

Further, I’d suggest that you know what you’re talking about, or (gasp) do a little researtch on your own, before you start demanding sources from those who question your, frankly (“I’ve heard . . . I’ve read . . . So and so says in 
this thread”), unsubstantiated claims. You just might get what you ask for.

Questions?

Rich


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

Mr Leonard, you ought to read the forum's latest postings before you jam your loafers into your mouth. And you ought to check out the sites you named (or the ones we both named, for that matter). My entries are posted an hour before your last one, and from mostly the same sites; I left mine at the "entry points" to the documents, but they are essentially the same.



> Are they not good enough for you? Are they just too hard to work with? Would you rather just get your "facts" from
> someone else's undocumented and unsupported claims?



Hmmm, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read my post of 0918 today (March 21) and tell me about facts grabbed from an unknown and unverified source (specifically, your claims about number of USAAF aerial victories in the Pacific).

The thing I could not find was a specific listing of the number of kills by specific airplane by the Army. The Navy records are broken down by specific aircraft, making it very easy to find stats about a particular aircraft


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

And of course, since we were discussing fighters, if you want to add in all types, then I don't suppose you want to count all the USN scores as well? Are we changing the gist of the thread? Nice diversion. 

Go back and count up JUST the fighters as we were discussing and see what you come up with.

Nice try.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

Oh, and figuring out AAF fighter types associated a given credit? Well, I guess that would mean you'd have to go back and look at squadron histories to determine which squadron was flying what type when, wouldn't it. Can be done, the information is out there, but, it sounds like that might be a little too much work, eh? You only get out what you put in.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 21, 2005)

Now this is some talk!

Leonard, in your listing of Fighter claims you had two for the P-26. Any help in finding where they were?

Also saw the 1960s Midway movie today, not that bad. I like the large use of USN Combat films.


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

> And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.



Mr Leonard, this is the figure you posted. The official USAAF records say over 6,300. Refuting your stat, not a nice diversion. You excel at and sarcasm, and I say

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Show me how your stat is correct. You must have the figures that you used, I told you where I got mine, now it is your turn. And don't divert us by telling me to count up every listed air victory, you must have the figures you used, and can tell us where you got them. If you cannot, then your veracity becomes suspect.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 21, 2005)

Willow, I do recall reading about some Filipino pilots that shot down Zeros just after Pearl Harbor, but I have not seen any P-26 victories by American pilots. I am not denying they happened, I don't have the records to see. Would have been one brave guy to face anything in a P-26 in 1941 or beyond!


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 21, 2005)

acesman said:


> > And USAAF in the Pacific (Cental, Southwest, and Aleutians) recorded some 3715 credited victories. The F6F beat that all by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Durring the War the P-38s in the PTO had 5,734 confirmed kills. Due to records destruction (most P-38s flew from foward bases like Henderson field, Guadalcanal and were subject to both the enemy and weather destruction) this hasn't been backed up in the existing records. So far I've not been able to back this up.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

> PUT UP OR SHUT UP.



You first. Did you go back and count up fighter victories, since that was what we were discussing? Doesn't look like it.

And show me your 5730 P-38 kills

You take the time to do the research and we'll talk. You take the time to determine who did what and where they did it. You take the time to determine which squadron was flying what airplane during what time period. You make some effort instead of expecting it to be handed to you. 

If you just want to play strawman, you can stuff it. 

The numbers are there. If you can't take the time to figure it out for yourself, that's not my fault.


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

OK, let's try a different tack.

Where did the numbers you claim for the P-38 (about 1700) come from? Counting the individual tallies of the pilots listed seems acceptable, but a bit tedious. Is that your source? Is there another?

BTW, it is funny in the USN records that all Japanese planes shot down are either fighters or bombers. Apparently the Japanese had no transport or observation planes that were shot down by the USN.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 21, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> > PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



5,734 was the number of claims creddited to P-38s in the Pacific DURRING the war. Many records have been destroyed durring the war and since. The USAF claims 15,863.6 kills in WWII (as of September, 2004 source Air Force Magazine.) *your numbers are low*. Just which numbers and why I don't know.
I haven't the time nor the intrest to spend all my time trying to count individual scores to prove it. It is also why the vast majority of WWII and aircraft historians accept the phrase "The P-38 shot down more Japanese airctaft than any other Alied aircraft" the number can no longer be proven through WWII action peports and records - That does not mean it is either incorrect or invalid. It happens in war.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

> two for the P-26. Any help in finding where they were?



The USAAF Statistical Digest apparently leaves out the action in the Philippines. My suspicion is that they 
had yet to put it all together. It also appears to leave out the credited claims of USAAF fighter pilots at Pearl 
Harbor.

So . . .

7 Dec 1941 = 10 Credited / 1 probable / 2 damaged

Then, credits awarded in the Philippines start went thusly:

8 Dec 41 = 10 / 0 / 0
10 Dec 41 = 7 / 0 / 0
12 Dec 41 = 7 / 0 / 0 This includes shared victories of 0.166 credits to each of six PAF pilots from the 6th FS, 
PAF, which operated the P-26, plus one other by another 6th FS pilot, for a total of 1.996 credits. Pilots were 3LT's 
Geronimo M. Aclan (0.166), Cesar M. Basa (0.166), Manuel Conde (0.166); and Antonio K. Mondigo (0.166); 
2LT Alberto S. Aranzaso (0.166); 1LT Godofredo M. Juliano (0.166); and Captain Jesus A Villamor (1.0). Action 
was over Batangas, Luzon.

16 Dec 41 = 1 / 0 / 0
3 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
17 Jan 42 = 2 / 0 / 0
18 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
19 Jan 42 = 1 / 0 / 0
and
26 Jan 42 = 3 / 0 / 0

Together, the Pearl Harbor and Philippines credits come to 43 / 1 / 2.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 21, 2005)

> OK, let's try a different tack.
> 
> Where did the numbers you claim for the P-38 (about 1700) come from? Counting the individual tallies of the pilots
> listed seems acceptable, but a bit tedious. Is that your source? Is there another?



Taking a step back and a deep breath.

The discussion was one relating to a claim that the P-38 shot down (NOTE “shot down” - that means in air to 
air action). And not to repeat lots of number thrown around, I reported hard numbers from the USN regarding 
the results from it’s two major fighters that would seem to contradict the P-38 claim. The P-38 claim became one 
of 5730, a claim for which no one has offered a reliable source. I offered the results of some pretty in depth research 
which indicated a number of about 1770 for the P-38. And for that being thoroughly trashed, evidently for providing 
information that shatters some cherished beliefs. After a final plea, I finally broke down and composed a long 
missive that provided my sources. Regretfully my post went out without my reading any intervening posts. 
I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the request for sources and the time granted to do so. I’m sorry that 
you could not wait for it.

And so now you know my sources, at least the ones readily available to Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea. 
I have others, originals or copies of documents and reports all neatly stored that I can drag out as needed. 
But, you know, frankly, the apparent fact that some do not have access to all of the sources as do I, really isn’t 
my problem. The fact that some either cannot accurately read or willfully distort the information that is in the available
internet sources isn’t particularly my problem, either. It is simply a shame that some feel they have to misrepresent
the data evidently because it does not conform to their beliefs.

To wit, (and please, please, someone go and check my numbers as an independent third party) please find 
below the results of fighter combat, by month, for the USAAF in the Pacific. And, at the risk of repeating 
myself, the USAAF considered the Pacific Theater to consist of the Far East Air Forces, Central Pacific Air Forces, 
and the Alaska Air Forces. This data is drawn from the relevant USAAF Statistical Digest tables 169, 170, and 
172 and shows credited fighter victories for the months shown.

From Table 169 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Pacific Ocean Areas 
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Pacific Ocean Areas 
None Reported for Months not shown 
Oct-43 = 1
Dec-43 = 5
Jan-44 = 12
Jun-44 = 1
Jul-44 = 2
Oct-44 = 1
Nov-44 = 12
Dec-44 = 10
Jan-45 = 3
Feb-45 = 5
Mar-45 = 2
Apr-45 = 71
May-45 = 88
Jun-45 = 113
Jul-45 = 44
*Subtotal = 370*

From Table 170 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Far East Air Forces 
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Far East Air Forces 
None Reported for Months not shown 
Feb-42 = 20
Mar-42 = 12
Apr-42 = 9
May-42 = 14
Jun-42 = 20
Jul-42 = 4
Aug-42 = 26
Oct-42 = 6
Nov-42 = 25
Dec-42 = 54
Jan-43 = 41
Feb-43 = 44
Mar-43 = 38
Apr-43 = 20
May-43 = 11
Jun-43 = 85
Jul-43 = 104
Aug-43 = 130
Sep-43 = 154
Oct-43 = 234
Nov-43 = 157
Dec-43 = 215
Jan-44 = 97
Feb-44 = 61
Mar-44 = 98
Apr-44 = 33
May-44 = 30
Jun-44 = 61
Jul-44 = 20
Aug-44 = 15
Sep-44 = 12
Oct-44 = 76
Nov-44 = 276
Dec-44 = 341
Jan-45 = 58
Feb-45 = 21
Mar-45 = 38
Apr-45 = 11
May-45 = 3
Jun-45 = 3
Jul-45 = 9
Aug-45 = 23
*Subtotal = 2709*

From Table 172 Enemy Aircraft Destroyed Alaska 
Enemy Aircraft Destroyed in the Air, by fighters, Alaskan Air Forces 
None Reported for Months not shown 
Jun-42 = 8
Aug-42 = 2
Sep-42 = 1
Oct-42 = 9
Nov-42 = 0
Dec-42 = 1
Feb-43 = 6
Mar-43 = 2
May-43 = 5
*Subtotal = 34*

*Total = 3113*

Note that the total, 3113 is quite a bit less that the number I originally gave as credit for USAAF fighter air to air, 
a score of 3715; a difference, in fact of 602, which I previously pointed out. So, right off the bat, I give the USAAF 
MORE credits than their own statistical digest. Does anyone want to move that we use this 3113 number instead?

Then, there’s always the 1957 recompilation of aerial victories. I won’t bore you with a lot on in and outs on 
getting a count from that, except to say that it can, indeed, be done if one takes the time to do so. And in fact, 
quite some time ago, I did so. The count that I came up with counting all the victories in the three aforementioned 
operating areas was *3680*. Again, a number less than the 3715 I use, by a whopping 35. Does anyone want to 
move that we use the 1957 recompilation 3680 instead?

And as an aside, one can go to various places on the internet, which I shall not enumerate as others can 
obviously find them if they bother to bestir themselves, find the squadron histories for the units mentioned in 
the 1957 recompilation and determine, with say, 95% certainty, which aircraft a give squadron was operating. 
I did that, too. But, I’m sorry, if someone wants that information, they’ll just have to do it themselves.

Finally, if you just happen to have a copy of Olynyk’s “USAAF (Pacific Theater) Credits for the Destruction of 
Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War II” you could go to the table in the very back, after the day by 
day accounting, after the by unit accounting, after the by pilot accounting . . . all the way in the back, 
on the last page, we find the following list of credit to the USAAF for aerial victories by known type of plane flown 
by a USAAF pilot. 

TYPE = CREDIT / PROBABLE / DAMAGED
F-6 = 1 / 0 / 0
F-6 or P-51 = 1 / 0 / 0
F-6D = 12 / 0 / 0
F-6K = 4 / 1 / 0
F4F =0.500 / 0 / 0
P-26 = 1.996 / 0 / 0
P-35A = 1 / 0 / 0
P-36A = 3 / 0 / 1
P-38 = 1085 / 177 / 110
P-38-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38E = 2 / 0 / 0
P-38F = 0 / 0 / 1
P-38F-5 = 88 / 26 / 25
P-38FF-5 = 0 / 1 / 0
P-38G = 33 / 7 / 1
P-38G-1 = 19 / 5 / 5
P-38G-15 = 55 / 14 / 5
P-38G-5 = 8 / 3 / 4
P-38H-1 = 180 / 24 / 16
P-38H-1-LO = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38H-5 = 109 / 26 / 11
P-38J = 1 / 1 / 0
P-38J-15 = 48 / 4 / 7
P-38J-20 = 10.5 / 2 / 4
P-38J-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-38L = 32.333 / 0 / 3
P-38L-1 =13 / 2 / 3
P-38L-5 = 13 / 1 / 1
P-39 = 130 / 37 / 18
P-39/400 = 2 / 0 / 0
P-39D = 7 / 2 / 2
P-39D-1 = 18 / 0 / 1
P-39D-2 = 12 / 6 / 1
P-39K = 1 / 0 / 0
P-39K/D = 6 / 0 / 0
P-39K-1 = 11 / 1 / 1
P-39N/Q = 13 / 0 / 2
P-39N-1 = 10 / 3 / 0
P-39N-5 = 21 / 5 / 3
P-39Q = 6 / 0 / 1
P-39Q-1BE = 3 / 0 / 0
P-39Q-5 = 3 / 2 / 2
P-40 = 187 / 31 / 21
P-40 or F-6 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-400 / 45 / 6 / 5
P-400 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40B = 10 / 0 / 0
P-40E = 135.999 / 10 / 2
P-40E-1 = 45 / 12 / 2
P-40F = 50 / 7 / 0
P-40F/N = 36 / 2 / 5
P-40K = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40K-1 =24 / 4 / 2
P-40M-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40N = 62 / 8 / 6
P-40N-5 = 98 / 9 / 7
P-40N-5-CU = 1 / 0 / 0
P-40R = 8.5 / 0 / 1
P-47 = 487 / 40 / 16
P-47D = 7.666 / 0 / 0
P-47D-2 = 31 / 0 / 0
P-47D-3RA = 2 / 3 / 2
P-47N = 169 / 10 / 16
P-51 = 30 / 2 / 0
P-51D = 187 / 33 / 93.999
P-51D-25NA = 1 / 0 / 1
P-51D-2O = 26 / 2 / 9
P-51D-2ONA = 34 / 2 / 7
P-61 = 43 / 4 / 4
P-61A = 13 / 2 / 0
P-61A-1 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61A-10 = 1.5 / 0 / 0
P-61A-11 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61A-5 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-61B-1 = 2 / 0 / 0
P-61B-15 = 1 / 0 / 0
P-70 = 2 / 0 / 0
TOTAL = 3712.994 / 537 / 427.999

You’ll note, undoubtedly the discrepancy between the 3715 figure that I use and the 3712.994. This is due to 
rounding within the table itself. Does anyone want to move that we use Olynyk’s 3712.994 instead?

Does anyone one have any better numbers that they can support with documentation?

So, anything else, gross total numbers for all USAAF aircraft or action in the CBI or anywhere else are not germane 
to the claim that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other US type. That’s mixing apples and 
oranges, either accidentally or on purpose.

I don’t see anyone with any real numbers to contradict anything here, and I am truly sorry if it does not conform 
to anyone’s preconceived notions. Quite honestly, I had no opinion on the matter until a couple of years ago 
when I started looking in to claims versus Japanese admitted losses and production. Then intellectual curiosity 
got the better of me and I wound up with a couple of Gigs of data.

So, there it is, take it or leave it. If anyone has better, verifiable, numbers, let’s see them.

I regret to tell some here that all the crying and wringing of hands makes no difference. All the shouting and deliberate 
mis-presentation (or, charitably, misunderstanding) of numbers that obscure the issue makes no difference. 
If you want to have discussion of historical data, then you need the data. And you should be honest in your presentation. 
There are some who do not get that message. And your data should be verifiable. To claim some number based 
on “lost report” (funny, last time it was because of some mysterious P-51 mafia doctoring the records) doesn’t cut 
it. Lost, stolen, or destroyed records don’t speak and don’t get a vote. Most of the time, they never existed. 
And I suggest folks search out someone with practical experience with military reporting. They can explain it 
to you; obviously my earlier explanation didn’t take except to burst some bubbles.




> BTW, it is funny in the USN records that all Japanese planes shot down are either fighters or bombers.
> Apparently the Japanese had no transport or observation planes that were shot down by the USN.



You can go to Table 28 and that gives you a little more breakdown, but only for the period 1 September 1944 
through the end of the war. The USN statistics are primarily aimed at results against major combat types, 
those of the VF, VB, and VTB varieties. But if you want to look at other types, then the numbers are going to 
start to go up. Simply, if they don’t mention the types other than fighters and bombers, then the numbers are a 
little low as they are incomplete. So, looking at Table 28, at the bottom there’s some catch all categories. 
They are (and I’ll just provide the totals for USN fighters operating in that period taken directly from the table):

F6F –
Flying Boats = 17
Transports = 36
Trainers = 17
Total = 70

F4U
Flying Boats = 0
Transports = 3
Trainers = 12
Total = 15

FM
Flying Boats = 0
Transports = 1
Trainers = 0
Total = 1

Now then, I don’t have the individual USMC results, so any additional numbers I can add will probably still be 
somewhat short, but I can fill in the totals for the Dec 1941 through August 1944 of shoot downs by Navy 
fighters of these general types of aircraft based on the ACA reports filed. I won’t break it down by month or 
anything fancy, but offer just a rough aggregate number in the same format.

F4F
Flying Boats = 17
Transports = 0
Trainers = 0
Total = 17

F6F
Flying Boats = 22
Transports = 2
Trainers = 0
Total = 24

F4U = No change

FM = No change

Which makes a rough total, for the USN types shown, for the entire war of

Totals
Flying Boats = 56
Transports = 42
Trainers = 29
Total = 127

There were, of course, others of these categories shot down by USN VB, VT, VP, and VBP types. Further, the USN 
made no distinction, for example, between the G4M series bombers and the G6M series transports, essentially 
indistinguishable from the exterior. As far as the USN was concerned, a “Betty” was a bomber.


Regards,

Rich


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

Seems pretty convincing to me!

Well done Rich. I applaud you for sticking to the point instead of resorting to counter-insults!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 22, 2005)

> 5,734 was the number of claims creddited to P-38s in the Pacific DURRING the war. Many records have been
> destroyed durring the war and since. The USAF claims 15,863.6 kills in WWII (as of September, 2004 source Air
> Force Magazine.) your numbers are low. Just which numbers and why I don't know.
> I haven't the time nor the intrest to spend all my time trying to count individual scores to prove it. It is also
> ...



If I'm off, it sure isn't in some mythical P-38 number. Just looking at fighter numbers (from the USAAF Statistics):

ETO = 7422 Air / 6796 ground
MTO = 3300 / 1364
CBI = 847 / 620
AL = 34 / 13
FE = 2709 / 299
CPac = 370 / 131
*TOTALS = 14682 / 9223*

So, if that number credited in the digest is 14,682 and your number is 15,864 then there's a difference 
of 1182. And if I say there's 1770 P-38 victories in the Pacific and you say there's 5734 that's a difference 
of 3964. But the difference between 3964 and 1182 is 2782. So either the USAF total number you quote 
is too small or your P-38 number is too big. Pick one.

I would direct yur attention to:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_dispatch_article.html

which says near the bottom "The great majority of the aerial victory credits occurred during World War II, 
when Army Air Forces' (AAF) pilots shot down almost 15,800 enemy airplanes. "

"Almost" means not quite where I come from. Your regional outlook may vary.

Or, if you go to the USAF site at 

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_total.html

you'll find "official" USAF fighter credits number for WWII as 15,811. You seem to have lost some. That would 
mean you could have some 2835 too many P-38 credits, right? Just adding and subtracting.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me an offical USAF site that 
confirms this theory on the P-38.

Let me be blunt (what else?). I don't care what scraps of reports good ole Martin Caiden found. Reports are
in many copies, they go to higher HQ which forwards consolidated copies to the next highest HQ, and so on. 
In my younger days I was a brigade S-3. Reports were a nightmare. Up from the companies to the battalions 
to me to the Div HQ and so on. Failing to file a report and making sure it got to the higher HQ when it was 
supposed to was akin to making a drunken pass at the Div commander's 16 year old daughter. Many is 
the battalion S-3 whom I let know my displeasure in no uncertain terms. I'm positive they had kind 
words for their company commanders in turn. 

Except for the cute little tale that appears in Caiden's "Forktailed Devils" which, I might add also has a
wonderful little tale of a P-38 that flew all by itself with a dead pilot for a couple of hours after is should 
have run out of gas and came all the way back to its base like a good little puppy where it magically 
fell apart right over the strip. Quoth Caiden "It's true." I think this and the "lost reports" are wonderful
little stories, but, come on, really? Just how much do you think the rational mind can handle? 
Caiden was a spinner of tall tales for the purpose of selling books.

What ever happened to your P-51 Mafia? I thought that was a much more novel approach.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## acesman (Mar 22, 2005)

Rich,
Thanks for the breakdown. There are some minor variations (you cant shoot down .994 of an aircraft), but this seems a very detailed accounting. I will concede the point about the P-38 in lack of any verifiable numbers to contradict the ones posted.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 22, 2005)

Just as an aside, the funny decimal amounts are easy to explain and the P-26 scores
from the 6th FS PAF give us a prime example. Six pilots gang up on one plane and shoot
it down. They each get equal credit.

One divided by six is 0.166666666666 all the way to the horizon and over.

You could make it come out even if four of the six were awarded 0.167 and two awarded 
0.166, but that would not be equal credit. If all were awarded 0.167, then the result is six
pilots shooting something more than one airplane (1.002), thus getting credit for 
something they did not really do. In the eyes of the bean counters, less is better. Credits
are then spread equally, no one gets more than anyone else. 0.996 of an airplane is a little 
more believable than .002 as a credit.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

that's kinda strange??


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 22, 2005)

acesman said:


> Rich,
> Thanks for the breakdown. There are some minor variations (you cant shoot down .994 of an aircraft), but this seems a very detailed accounting. I will concede the point about the P-38 in lack of any verifiable numbers to contradict the ones posted.



I accepted the fact that the number cannot be becked up at this point in time, long ago However Do you cease to exist if your birth certificate gets burned? Rich I accept the numbers DON'T jive however you as a student of history should know there are times where the records and the facts don't add up! I'm just not willing to keep arguring about it, youve done a great job with what's available but available is the operative word.


----------



## Mosin (Mar 26, 2005)

I know its probably me but I am loyal to the P-40 WARHAWK. I guess the fact that it served early and late and good at all times( although the mitsubishi had better maneuverability). 
Good armor,speed,and range(later)and gunnery.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 29, 2005)

Mosen, yes the P-40 was very good and could hold its own in the air, as long as the pilot could understand how to fly it to it's better points. 

Envenglider, I was thinking of the P-26 and also the P-40 as I was watching Tora Tora Tora in the rain this Monday. That is just a good film  I cringed as the P-40s were shot up on the runway as the brave pilots tried to get in the air. Then cheared when a few were able to make it up. I know it is not a lot of victories but the kills they got must have been really hard. Also there are some great shots of PBYs sadly also being shot up.

Any one elts coment on this film?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 29, 2005)

Definitely a better Pearl Harbor film than the move "Pearl Harbor"! There are a few errors in Tora though. The scene where the Japanese are flying over the island and you see the big cross on the hill. That cross was erected in the 1950s! Oops. There is also a quick pan shot of people running where you can see the Arizona memorial in the background. But I shouldn't deflect the fact that the movie is very good. I own a copy on DVD myself.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Definitely a better Pearl Harbor film than the move "Pearl Harbor"! There are a few errors in Tora though. The scene where the Japanese are flying over the island and you see the big cross on the hill. That cross was erected in the 1950s! Oops. There is also a quick pan shot of people running where you can see the Arizona memorial in the background. But I shouldn't deflect the fact that the movie is very good. I own a copy on DVD myself.



Um.. in those days there were no digital effects. There was no way to remove that cross or the Arizona memorial. And no way to dumy up a decent fake PH either!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

but peal harbour (the film of that name) absolutely sucked..........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 30, 2005)

I agree, RG, but the angle of the shot could have kept out the AZ memorial. Most people don't know the cross was put up after the war, so it's not a big deal, just something that I noticed.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 2, 2005)

Evenglider, thanks for the thoughts. As for the Dreamworks film "Pearl Harbor" being bad, it was a disapointment, but it got people to remember the battle and that is ipmortant. 

With the Cross in Tora, that I did not know was a post war, and for the Memorial, I think I missed it or the shot went past to fast for me. But that film I think shows the conflict in the Japonease navy better and Yamamoto's fear that he will lose the war.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 2, 2005)

Yamamoto had been educated in the USA, and therefore had spent a considerable time here. Unlike the other Japanese leadership, he had a very good idea of the way American's think and also its size and industrial power.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 3, 2005)

I agree, Willow, it is important for people to remember but I expected better out of Dreamworks for historical accuracy. I think Yamamoto was very apprehensive at starting a war with the US. He was the only one who had actually been to the US, as you said RG and knew that if we needed to, we could crank up our industrial output.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

Just off memory, IIRC, the US economy was seven times the size of the Japanese economy in the 1938-39 fiscal year. And the Japanese economy was on a war footing, the US economy was just barely comming out of the depression.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 5, 2005)

Evenglider, true Dreamworks dose normaly do a betterjob of histroy, but then they also had to make some exceptions for being hollywood as well. I did realy like the way that the navey nurses were shown. That job must have been hell to take care or or try the, all the burn kids and covvered in oil.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 21, 2005)

Too bad the poll left out the P-47N Thunderbolt.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

That was my bad. Want me to add it?


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2005)

If the P47N is to be included then it seems to me that the Ki100 should also be given a chance. Most people will also agree that the Ki84 was a very good fighter capable of giving any American fighter a hard time and should also be included. 
Out of the 2 my vote would be for the Ki100. I know that on paper it doesn't look as good but the Pilots always say that the 100 was the best Army fighter and who am I to disagree with the people who's lives were on the line.
I don't know how the Ki43 got put on the list. It was very slow. very poorly armed, very weak and couldn't dive for anything. All it had was agility. A CR42 would have had a fighting chance against one.
A great fighter needs to have a balance and this isn't it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

Hmmm.... I think one of the criteria is that the plane has some operational usage in theatre.. The 100 and the 47N did not really have the "Time on Station" to be included in this poll.......

I also agree the -43 and the -40 should not have been included, but it was CC's poll, so he's the man.... I also think that the Zero getting more votes than the Shiden Kai is a joke, but agree with the rest of the poll voting.......


----------



## MP-Willow (May 23, 2005)

The P-47N did have "tiime on station" from Sipain or earlier to theend of the war. it was created for the Pacific. But maybe I am a little jadded for it.
The ki-100 was not in the numbers. I think part of the poll was for operations.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

I say P-38 Lightning which was a good fighter with long range and ability. It was even captured in small numbers by the Germans, who evaluated it. If WW2 had gone on longer I think the fighters and bombers in both theatres would have standardised a bit more than they were at 1945.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

P-38 eh...good man 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> It was even captured in small numbers by the Germans, who evaluated it.



as they did with many planes, they proberly managed to capture more P-38s than they did many other planes........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

LOL I doubt that...they had loads of B-17's. Ive seen one Luftwaffe P-38, and 2 Italian ones.


----------



## elmilitaro (May 24, 2005)

Hey the hellcat was the best with a 19:1 kill ratio. Tell me what other plane had this record.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Well the finns used the B-239 to a kill ration of 26:1  But obviously that isnt Pacific.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

elmilitaro said:


> Hey the hellcat was the best with a 19:1 kill ratio. Tell me what other plane had this record.



Some things to think about:

The Hellcat was the most numerous USN fighter at a time when it particiapted in several major naval battles, it had a huge advantage numerically, logistically, and tactically. For example, consider by the time of the Marianas Turkey Shoot, the caliber of Japanese pilots severely diminished. Don't get me wrong, the Hellcat was a great aircraft, but with these situations in a "combat rich environment" it was no wonder it came out with that type of kill ratio!


----------



## R Leonard (May 24, 2005)

Eastern FM-2: 32.46 to 1 overall. From 1 Sep 1944 to EOW: 41.89 to 1. From 1 Jan 45 to EOW: 187 to 1

Damn nice job for "the Wilder Wildcat"

Rich


----------



## MP-Willow (May 27, 2005)

Kill ratios are a bit miss leading, as FlyboyL says, the F6F witch I do like, had a lot less quality pilot to go against then say the P-40 and F4F pilots in the first years. 

Now when the Hellcat did find a skilled IJN Pilot in a Ki-84 or the like it did to a good job, but some of the new planes were taxing the F6F. 
As for the F6F I think it was best with the 2 20mm guns and 4x.50s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

Also consider that you had a similar situation with the F6F as with the P-51. In the PTO you had to be a good pilot to fly a P-38 or an F4U. If you flew and F6F and you were a good pilot, you became a great pilot. Now I'm not comparing the F6F to the P-51, but what I am saying is the F6F was tough and easily flown, a good combination for semi-green pilots. I think this fact attributed to its success.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2005)

I will agree, but those semi-green pilots had the numbers advantage over anything they flew against. Aside from the few times that the realy good Japanese pilots were flying


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

Absolutely - and with an F6F, that was just another advantage.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 3, 2005)

Yes, but then I have been thinking we all talk of the pilots and planes, but what of the crews on the cround that worked through rain, shells and poor if non-excistant replacement parts to keep them fighting along


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Yes, but then I have been thinking we all talk of the pilots and planes, but what of the crews on the cround that worked through rain, shells and poor if non-excistant replacement parts to keep them fighting along



As a mechanic by trade, I appreciate that


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 3, 2005)

What I mean, is that the older types would gradually be eliminated in Combat or otherwise so that the newer types would be predominant in the Pacific Forces of that time. Thus there would be a new economy of scale in terms of Parts and Servicing. Also the assumption is that there would be attempts to be able to produce parts closer to the Front-line. Maybe using resources shipped from China. As well China, may become assuming that it has survived in some form at this stage of the War, an Allied Production Facility churning out thousands of Fighters leaving American production to focus on the European War. The only hinderance being the speed at which new pilots can be trained to replace those that were lost in Combat or accidents.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

HealzDevo, China was a mess for most of the war. The P-40s that were flying in Eastern China were put together mostly by wite, and the creativity of the ground crews. I do not think that China would have been used for war production of any real scale. The scale was massive when you look at the landings in the Pacific.

FlyboyJ, you are always welcome. Hotshot pilots need to know what keeps them in the air


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> FlyboyJ, you are always welcome. Hotshot pilots need to know what keeps them in the air



YEP - WITHOUT MAINTAINERS PILOTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GOOD-LOOKING PEDESTRIANS WITH EXPENSIVE SUNGLASSES! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 6, 2005)




----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2005)

I will agree to that!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 2, 2005)

The P38 is what i think was the best during the war. Good American built fighters make dog-fighting a whole lot easier!!! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 2, 2005)

Nice picture *steals*


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

That's Glacier Girl! They pulled it out of a glacier in the late '90s in Greenland. It was on a ferry mission to England with 4 other P-38s and two B-17s and they had difficulty and ditched in Greenland. Some rich lads went up there on loads of excursions to find them, they found a B-17 crushed and they gave up but then went back after being told the P-38 being smaller would withstand the extreme pressures of being buried. And it did, and there it is...flight worthy!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

how much work did she need??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2005)

She changed hands after she was recovered, but I think her restoration cost 10mil.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

Here she is in the ice, being recovered.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2005)

You can read all about the recovery and restoration on their website. It is really kind of interesting. The B-17 was really tempting, and so is another P-38 I think they could go get.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2005)

Big Bucks to do it!


----------



## elmilitaro (Jul 6, 2005)

Hey, if it would cost 10 mil. to restore a that P-38 that was found on the island, how much would it cost for one of the B-17's that crashed there (still repairable, of course) to restore her?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 6, 2005)

Ive been to see Glacier Girl a couple times, its currently in Middlesboro Ky which is about an hour or so from me. They have a pretty nice hangar setup with a movie plus tons of memorabilia. One of my favorite things was the giant water heated plumb bob used to melt through the ice down to the aircraft. They also have most of the original aircraft parts available on display. Pretty fun trip, plus I think its mandatory that everyone eats at KFC after coming through the Cumberland Gap tunnel!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

I doubt it's possible. I saw the first B-17 they found, it was completely crushed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2005)

elmilitaro said:


> Hey, if it would cost 10 mil. to restore a that P-38 that was found on the island, how much would it cost for one of the B-17's that crashed there (still repairable, of course) to restore her?




BIG BUCKS


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 20, 2005)

But we can all dream!!

Or why not rebiuld it? It would be a lot ot time and cash, but worth it


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I can't dream - it's forbidden in my...religion?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> But we can all dream!!
> 
> Or why not rebiuld it? It would be a lot ot time and cash, but worth it



It might be cheaper just to build a replica from scratch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 20, 2005)

it's not the same as an original though, there'd be no history behind it............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's not the same as an original though, there'd be no history behind it............



You're right!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

Well I jumped into this thread a bit late but I will sum it up in one word:

Corsair


----------



## superunknown (Jul 22, 2005)

I thought we had already done this one, Corsair.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 22, 2005)

P-40!


Sorry. That wasnt even funny. Corsair


----------



## superunknown (Jul 22, 2005)

It was kinda funny, my mouse locked up mid-scroll and all I could see was P-40! I almost crapped, puked, screamed and had a heart attack all at the same time, then I realised......
You almost killed me, you b*stard!, that wasn't funny at all!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Good job I wasnt exercising original thinking at the time, I might just have put P-26  Then you would have crapped, puked, screamed and had a heart attack


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Yes that would have been wrong.


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 18, 2006)

in what theater of operations they were used?
Does anyone have their color profiles?
It´s kind of urgent!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2006)

Which airplane are you asking about, para?


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

The kawanishi N1K2 Shiden Kai "GEORGE"


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 19, 2006)

Like this?





Source on right click


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

yes, that one.
Im going to participate in a modelling event with a brown shiden but i need to now were it was used!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 19, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_N1K-J

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html

Profile:




Source on right click


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

thank you, but the Japanese airplanes aren't very famous and the sites copy the articles of each other it's like the modeling shows hundreds of allied and German planes and a handful of Japanese and Italian airplanes


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2006)

It is extremely annoying about the lack iof interest and nations that played perhaps a lesser part in the war, as they often have many interesting stories and facts.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

I agree on this. On LJ I got into a discussion about Japanese aircraft in modern avaition art (hey its Live Journal, go figure) and we could not find any source material on line.

:{)


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

even books are rare and expensive, there is a site of ebooks with 241 books, and gess, only 6 are about jap planes!!!!
the shiden that I am going to present in the show is from the 343 kokutai but I can't find any references were it was posted, I have to gess between formosa, Luzon and japan.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2006)

Ive come across a couple of books about the Italians which sound really good....barring the £150+ price.


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

British pounds or lira's? Try www.betah.co.il, some of the books are in chezc or poul, but the images are great and the color profiles helps with the black and white fotos


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2006)

Awesome! Found some things but when I tried to download It would let me, must have some settings on my computer preventing me.


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

if you register on the forum it will let you download 15 books/24h


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2006)

Still not working


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 19, 2006)

it must be your security defenitions


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

I have also seen some wonderful publications, in Cyrillic!

:{)


----------



## paranalvo (Feb 20, 2006)

Isn't it wonderful! the russians with their beautiful winters have lots of time for reading and modeling so they have a industry of scale planes and armours in expansion. Here in western europe we have the same old airplanes (spits and messers) it's an horror


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 22, 2006)

If you readsome stuff from USN pilots in the Pacific you will find some info on the IJN aircraft. If you can read Japanese more power to you, and info. But even that is sketchy at times.

Did you get what you needed? The N1kK2 was a very good aircraft that if given the pilot was the equill of any USAF/ USN or RAF aircraft


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 28, 2006)

of course, at the beginning of the pacific war, the zero was, by far, the best..........but........during the progression, our plane builders learned, jap planes stayed about the same and there was no match between ours and theirs................


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 28, 2006)

I wouldnt say it was the best. I mean, once the americans figured out how to fight the zero, it stood no match, even in P-40s with no gunsights (claire chenaults flying tigers). The japanese had a manouverable plane and good pilots trained in china. Thats where the advantages, besides range end. It didnt have a high ceiling, couldnt turn above 250mph worth a damn, had 0! armor, and its two 7.62mm machineguns are pitifully weak (the damn hurricane had eight, and they tried twelve on the... the one with the napiere sabre engine that became an awesome fighter bomber). It had two 20mm cannon, but these didnt have alot of ammunition, 60 rounds a piece. Four guns, no armor, need for low speed, low cieling, and lack of decent bomb load make the zero vulnerable, in a turning fight it was unbeatable, otheriwse the pilots of the rising sun would be plummetting to earth like a setting one.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2006)

dgetlin said:


> jap planes stayed about the same and there was no match between ours and theirs................


Not very well versed in Japanese fighter aircraft are we??? The latter fighter aircraft produced were on the equal, if not superior to, Allied aircraft...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 16, 2006)

I don't think the P-38 and Corsair were beat by the japanese aircraft. Also Grumman had the Bearcat which wasn't bad either.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2006)

The F8F was a niche aircraft, whose design was a dead end.

The P38L, P51H, P47N and F4U-4 were all more superior.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The F8F was a niche aircraft, whose design was a dead end.
> 
> The P38L, P51H, P47N and F4U-4 were all more superior.



I agree, the Bearcat was a Kamikaze fighter but that was the limit of its practical abilities.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2006)

The F8F never quite made it into combat in WWII anyway. It was en route when the war ended. It climbs like a beast, but the range was too short to be much beyond a fleet defense fighter, and that is only after the threat is identified as inbound. No way it could loiter above for any length of time. I love the Bearcat, but it's range was it's shortcoming.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 24, 2006)

Sure wish the Ki-44 Tojo was in this one. Hot motor in the later models and a couple of 40mm cannons equals big booms. (be a good shot cuz you don't get much ammo) Still went with the Corsair...


----------



## Duck Tape (Apr 5, 2008)

The F6F Hellcat accounted for more kills than both the F4U Corsair and F4F Wildcat, and shot down Mitsubishi A6M like flies. Yet it's behind F4U in the poll?? Wah?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2008)

Yes it is behind in the polls. Why?

Becuase the Corsair was still a much better aircraft. Based on a combination of firepower, maneuverability and performance it was the best fighter to see service in the Pacific.


----------



## johnbr (Apr 5, 2008)

Me I like the K84


----------



## Duck Tape (Apr 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes it is behind in the polls. Why?
> 
> Becuase the Corsair was still a much better aircraft. Based on a combination of firepower, maneuverability and performance it was the best fighter to see service in the Pacific.



That may be the case, but a plane should be judged by its combat record. F6F Hellcat's record is rock solid compared to Corsair.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2008)

The Corsair did not have a bad record either.

We are comparing aircraft here and fact is fact.


----------



## Duck Tape (Apr 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Corsair did not have a bad record either.
> 
> We are comparing aircraft here and fact is fact.



That depends on what criteria you are judging the aircrafts. If going by plane characterstics, then F4U Corsair would be the victor. Going by number of kills, the Hellcat deserves a better position in the poll.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2008)

You're absolutely right; aircraft should be compared in different ways. I believe the majority of this discussion has been based on technical ability where the Corsair wins. I believe it would be wrong to ever compare aircraft by their kills, maybe their kill ratio would be a better comparison where I believe the Hellcat wins. 

When it comes to the "Best" PTO fighter it really is asking which was the greatest at doing what it was designed to do. Let's be honest, the F6F and F4U had the same tasks and the Corsair was better equipped to do the job. Both aircraft were great but if you C-in-C wouldn't you choose the Corsair over the Hellcat?


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2008)

The bottom line is that the US Navy in 1944 evaluated the Hellcat and Corsair and stated that the Corsair should replace the Hellcat as soon as practicable.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2008)

I'm still voting for the P38L.

Excellent capabilities in most categories to make it #1


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 6, 2008)

Comparing the Corsair to the Hellcat is a bit like comparing the Spitfire to the Hurricane. (at the BoB) The Corsair/Spitfire were a bit trickier to fly, were much faster, generally more maneuverable (though not as good in a flat out turn), had higher stall speeds, had better all around visibility with worse visibility over nose, couldn't take quite as much damage, and were not available in as large of numbers as the Hellcat/Hurricane.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 6, 2008)

Also, when you're talking about bulk number of kills that the two aircraft got, keep in mind the Hellcat entered service BEFORE the Corsair.


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2008)

Negative, the Corsair was in service and in combat before the Hellcat. First combat for the Corsair was on Feb. 14, 1943. First combat for the Hellcat was August 28, 1943. The first production Hellcat flew on Oct. 3, 1942. The Corsair was already in service then. Comparing kills by the two AC is deceptive. The Hellcat proportionately made more of it's kills aganst bombers and the Corsair against fighters. The Hellcat also got a lot of it's kills later in the war against poorly trained pilots. The Corsair, when first in action was still facing some of the veteran pilots.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 7, 2008)

The Hellcat started USN carrier operations first though, right. (I think the Brits had it on carriers earlier)


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2008)

KK, actually Corsairs were operational on carriers first but by the time the Corsair was ready to be deployed to combat zones, the Navy had already decided the Hellcat was to be the carrier fighter and the measures had been taken to get all the spare parts etc. to the Pacific so the Corsair was deployed as land based and the Navy had to wait until the Hellcats were ready in numbers to fly off the carriers. That first combat for the Hellcat was however land based. The RN never got it's hands on a Corsair for familiarization until after our Navy had already worked out some of the bugs in carrier operations with the F4U. The first combat for the Hellcat off of carriers was on August 31, 43 in a raid on Marcus Island where two Hellcats are lost to AA fire. The RN begins training with Corsairs in Dec. 43. Interestingly, the first use of the Corsair as a dive bomber is on March 8, 44 when 8 Corsairs drop 1000 pound bombs on Mille. It is found that the AC can be used safely in dives to 85 degrees. The Navy first deploys F4U2s in Jan , 44 on board Enterprise as nightfighters.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

There is also the Kawasaki Ki 100. Developed from the Ki 61, with a radial. it was not real quick, but was even better than the george


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

Performance wise the Ki 84 was better still, and the Ki 100 wasn't significantly better performing than the N1K-2/J, a bit in climb but that's about it.

The George still had one major advantage over other Japanese fighters: durability, ruggedness, and survivability. Most late war Japanese fighters had incorporated better protection and other features but the N1K-2/J was the only one that could truly compete with US fighters in terms of fighting ability and survivability. And while performance was no better than the average US late war fighter, it was still decent and maneuverable and fairly even match against the Hellcat and competitive with most other allied fighters. With high octane US avgas it performed much better in post war testing with a top speed of ~400 mph.

It also had automatic maneuvering flaps (both retracting and deploying).


IMO it was the best all around Japanese fighter to see service during the war.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

I agree with what yoou say about its strong points, but the geaorge also had some big disadvasntages, or caveats that we need to take into account in the wash up....in summary i see the George problems as 

1)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

I agree with what you say about its strong points, but the george also had some big disadvasntages, or caveats that we need to take into account in the wash up....in summary i see the George's problems as 

1) The george spent a lot of time grounded, mostly because the homare engine that powered it was unreliable. Ki 100 engine was proven and much more reliable. Consequently its serviceability was better.
I dont know about the airframe. George (I) had problems, George (II) was a redesign to address this, but I am not sure the redesign was completely successfull. Will concede, however that the main problem (the undercarriage) was fixed in the Model 2
2) Lack of altitude. George could not fight effectively at B-29 altitude. The Ki-100 still had difficulty, but could do it better than the george (sorry about the non-technical appraisal). 
3) Performance. Georges were attached mainly to elite units, eg the 343 AG. This is likley to prejudice the outcomes of air combats against it. As far as I know (but not sure), Ki 100 units were not over-populated with Aces in the same way as the george was
4) Both types suffered from low speed, a common problem for late war Jap planes. Mustangs and Thunderbolts were 70-80 mph faster at altitude, which is where it mattered in '45


----------



## eddie_brunette (Apr 10, 2008)

Hellcat for me. 

I find it amazing that certain planes(p40, p38, F6F) always get "bumped" down by the "Forum Friends" and certain planes get all the glory(like the overated p51), funny they usally the US planes


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

Hi eddie

Firstly, I want to assure you that I am not American, and secondly I am new, so I dont think that I qualify as a "Forum Friend". Thirdly the planes I was looking at were not American.

However, having said all that, and made all those disclaimers, the cold hard truth is that the US did produce some very outstanding planes, that must be included in any shortlist. Plus the Americanophiles have the peiceless advantage that they actually won the war......to the victor goes the spoils they say. 

I understand your frustration, it happens, and its understandable, but hey dont lump all of us into the one category please


----------



## plan_D (Apr 10, 2008)

The fact of the matter is the U.S made the best carrier borne aircraft of the war. The only country that came close was Japan, but in the end the U.S. bred the carrier battle group in World War II.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2008)

As PD says, the US had the best carrier borne AC, particularly fighters of the war and the F4U4 was arguably the best all around fighter of WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> As PD says, the US had the best carrier borne AC, particularly fighters of the war and the F4U4 was arguably the best all around fighter of WW2.



Except for the P38.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 10, 2008)

I gotta admit, it was a tough call . . . . the P-38 is my favorite Allied aircraft of WWII, but the Corsair was probably the best Pacific fighter. However, I still went with the P-38 . . . . . it had better range than the Corsair, and could carry a bigger warload. Plus, you've got two engines, better for overwater safety.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2008)

The P38 was the best fighter of the war, arguably. So was the P47, the P51, the FW190D and the redoubtable but elusive TA152. My entry would still be the various models of Corsair, fighter, fighterbomber, dive bomber, recon fighter and night fighter, all carrier borne.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 10, 2008)

Tough call, both good planes. I will say from everything I have read you had to be a very good pilot to get the very best out of a P-38 (explains some of the reports from LW pilots refering to it as a below average fighter, although tech speaking it is a good one). Everything I have read on the Corsair was it was a nice plane to fly by all standards.

So like I said before tough call, both were good.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2008)

Things the P38 was better in than the Corsair:

High altitude performace

Recon capability

Tricycle landing gear

Payload

Range (extremely important in the PTO)


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 10, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Things the P38 was better in than the Corsair:
> 
> High altitude performace
> 
> ...



Agree with all your points, but you are missing the most important one.

How pilot friendly was it? 

From many reports and dead newbie pilots I would say not very. Many new pilots crashed the P-38 into the dirt unable to recover from a dive.

As you know air wars are won by great air forces. Great air forces are made up from not hand full of aces, but the average pilot. Average pilots found the Corsair easier to fly.

Both are good planes, hard to pick b/c of all points made by us both.

I would say we are trying split atoms (not like we never do that here LOL) here trying to choose one or the other when both are good.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2008)

Alluding to Hunter's point of how easy it was to fly...

I was talking with a guy who ran the Warbirds Group for a while. I am not sure what his job was, something like a CEO. I believe it was part of the EAA. He was a guy with a ton of hours in everything from Wildcats to Mustangs to Corsairs. Big time in WW2 fighters. I, at the time, was interested in getting into flying ex-military birds and was picking his brain on the subject. 

I asked him which would be the best plane for a guy who started flying Cessnas and wanted to work his way up to the WW2 fighter level. Said the AT6/SNJ route was a must but then, when asked which of the WW2 fighters was easiest to fly (I figured it would be the Mustang), he suprised me by saying it was the Corsair. I thought the low speed stall problems and whatnot would make it hairy. He said that stuff was worked out in most of the birds out there now and it was generally a pilot friendly aircraft. 

Just a little tidbit of info. Not a huge fan of the Corsair myself but...


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2008)

At the joint fighter conference in Oct. 1944, in a general evaluation, the attending pilots ranked F4Us quite high in all the categorys. The P38L was ranked quite low in most categories. One category it ranked high in was for worst cockpit. It ranked number one there. The F4U ranked third worst. Best all around fighter above 25000 feet-F4U ranked third, P38L ranked sixth. Best all around fighter below 25000 feet-F4U ranked second, P38L was not ranked. Best fighter bomber- F4U ranked one, P38L ranked fifth. Best strafer- F4U ranked two, P38 ranked fifth. The F4U1D fighter bomber had a max range of 1900 miles. The P38L had a max range of 2200 miles. I believe that when carrying a bomb load the P38 would not be able to carry a bigger bomb load than a F4U for the same range because the useful load of the P38 would be used up by the fuel needed. The P38 put a greater strain on the logistical tail because of it's thirst for fuel. That was not as much of a consideration in Europe as it was in the Pacific and CBI. In the CBI single engine fighters were much preferred because of fuel considerations. The P38 cost more than a Corsair to begin with and cost a lot more to maintain. The P38 was very vulnerable to ground fire and was a big target for enemy pilots plus it was easy to see and identify. Perhaps that is why it's sortie/loss rate was the worst of all AAF fighters in the ETO.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 10, 2008)

All good point that I agree with 100%.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2008)

In normal cofig the P-38 could carry up to 4,000 lbs bombs, (2x 2,000 lb) but range would hardly be useful. A 2,000 lb plus a 300 gal drop tank would work well though. (I don't have actual range figures with this) 

The F4U-4/5 (from land bases) could carry up to 5,200 lbs of bombs (2x 1,600, 1x 2,000 lb) but again for only short range. Mix with drop tanks is most useful here as well.

Due to the near centerline bomb/tank pylon placement, both a/c should be able to carry off-center loads. If we compare the carrying capability of store selections. P-38L: bombs up to 2,000 lbs and various drop tanks up to 310 US gal. on each (of 2x) pylon. F4U-4: up to 1,600 lb bomb or 154 US gal. drop tank on each wingroot pylon, and up to 2,000 lb bomb or 300 gal drop tank on centerline.

Due to the high external fuel capacity max range is much more than max practical radius, as far more than 1/2 the fuel is carried externaly. The max radius should be limited to somthing less than the max clean range of the a/c, otherwise you'd have to enter combat with drop tank(s) still on
For example, the P-38L could easily have a ferry range of over 3,300 mi, but operational radius would be ~1,000 mi with economical return cruise and that's stretching it with 15-30 min combat.

I don't have comprehensive figures on the F4U's range performance but there are these on the P-47, P-51, and P-38: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg


The Corsair would roll much better at low to medium speeds (and probably similar at high speed) it could turn tighter, but the P-38 could accelerate faster and keep its speed better in maneuvers, the F4U could dive much better. (even with flaps the P-38 was limited to .68 mach which is ~500 mph at low level and much less at altitude) Level speed and climb was about equal up to 23,000 ft. Above 23,000 ft the P-38 would start to gain a performance advantage, but sustained combat at those heights was unlikely, much moreso in the PTO. The P-38 had no torq and sometimes a rudementary autopilot for long missions being much more pleasant to cruise and controll in general due to little need for trimming. The P-38 had more concentrated firepower with no convergence zone and more ammo (500 rpg opposed to 400 rpg) and a standard 20mm cannon with 150 rpg. The cannon armed Corsair was not common, had problems with guns freezing at altitude, and had limited ammo (though similar to the P-38's), while both used the somewhat unreliable M2 20mm Hispano cannon, the P-38 still had the 4x MG's if it failed and with all the previous advantages. The P-38 had better visibility as well.

We can argue about engine volnerabillity and reliability, 2x liquid vs 1x radial, the F4U's volnerable oil coolers etc... So I won't go there now.

Both were excelent fighters, particularly in this theater, both were excelent fighter bombers with an edge to the Corsair IMO. But as pure fighter I can't choose, but I'd take either over the P-51 (a single liquid cooled engine with "miles" of coolant lines between the engine and radiator, flying long range over the expansive Pacific 0_0) 

I'd also choose the P-47D (let's stick with the D to be fair since it saw the most service and was the most available while the N saw limited service at the very end of the war) With continued improvements had speed as good or better than the P-38 of F4U thoughout the war, climb was decent but not nearly as good. (particularly at low level where the F4U-4 would have a ~1,000 ft/min advantage) Max dive speed, acceleration and critical Mach is higher than any other major Prop fighter of the war. Roll rate is good, though not as good as the F4U-4. It would lose in a turning fight with either under most circumstances. Visibility is worse than either in razorback, better than both bubble-top. Range of all 3 should be comperable. Could not carry as much ordinance due mainly to the limited clearance for the belly shackel, but could carry up to 1,500 lbs under each wing and anothe 1,000 lb bomb on belly. Could take more damage than either due to heavy frame and placement of oil cooler in engine compartment.


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

KK, some good analysis. The range figure I quoted for F4U was the later model without internal wing tanks. The F4U1 actually had a max range of 2200 miles with the internal wing tanks. As you say, the combat radius of an AC is going to be much less than one half of max range. Those max range figures are "yardstick" ranges and only good for comparison. All of us armchair pilots sit around and throw these numbers out we have read about as if they represent the real world. I remember reading in Lundstrom( who I believe is one of the best) that the A6M had a combat radius from a carrier of about 300 miles and from land bases about 500 miles. That is a far cry from numbers we bandy about. Another sticky point is we quote Vmax, range, load and rate of climb as if they all happen together. Baloney! All those properties don't exist at the same time. That is the main reason I don't put a lot of credence in the performance numbers of these "wunder airplanes" that were designed and some produced in small numbers near the end of the war by all the powers. Until an AC has been produced in fairly large numbers, the bugs ironed out(if possible) and it has seen operational service, then I don't see how one can tell how effective that particular AC is. Just because a fighter can go really fast at some height way up there according to the manufacturer doesn't mean in the real world it will be a winning performer. Also just because one airplane can go 20 mph faster at a certain altitude than another, that does not mean that that speed difference at that altitude is tactically significant. An extreme case: In a book of mine an experienced Navy fighter pilot in an F8 was in a mock dogfight with a guy in an A4. The F8 at altitude is roughly twice as fast as an A4. Everytime the F8 made a run on the A4 he found the A4 was going nose to nose with him with his 20 mms ready. Looking at the numbers a Mig 17 has no chance against an F4. Not true! Paper numbers don't mean as much as operational experience. One of the fighter factors that I don't believe is given enough emphasis but is also hard to evaluate is range. Not only to get into the fight but to stay in the fight. If one is in ACM with another and one AC has 5 minutes of WEP and the other 10 minutes, that is a factor. If normal fuel will allow 10 minutes at military power and another has 20 minutes at military power, there is an advantage. I remember in Lundstom he mentioned that a section of Wildcats in protecting the carrier had to fight at 50% power because they were running low on fuel. I have a friend, a retired Navy Capt., who flew the A6 in an evaluation against a Mig 21. He said their best tactic to survive was to get down on the deck and run because the Mig 21 did not carry much fuel. Anyway, a BF109 with full internal fuel is a different animal to a P51 with full internal fuel. Many of the ETO fighters just did not have the range to get into and stay into the fight in the PTO.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 11, 2008)

It's most fair to compare performance in a configuration for similar range. While this doesn't reflect the actual situations that may have occurred (particularly if comparing US and LW fighters in the ETO, as the intercepting LW fighters needed much less range) But even then, a plane designed to have more range will have a somewhat greater empty weight as well due to the larger tanks (and reinforced structure if needed) so the only really fair comparison is if there is a version of each plane capable of the same max range on internal fuel. Ie a long range Spitfire with increased internal fuel will perform worse than a normal ranged one.

And the power rating time limits could and were exceeded, but it was then necessary to fully inspect the engine (or a completer tear down in some cases) to ensure it wouldn't fail on a later mission.



And one thing to note on the P-47D is that at it's highest performance at 2,600 hp (some, like Robert S. Johnson's may have been as high as 2,700 hp) with 100/150 grade fuel at 70" Hg boost, it's turbo limited this power to ~23,500 ft at which it could manage 444 mph. (it HAD been officially cleared for 2,600 hp @ 70" boost with 100/150 grade) So performance up to this altitude would only have been marginally better with the P-40M (mostly in climb, due to reduced weight, but also since the M hadn't initially been fitted with wing pylons) and very similar to the N (though the N was more maneuverable with better roll and slightly better wing loading).


I hadn't mentioned the armament of the P-47 either, with higher max ammo at 420 rpg to the F4U-4's 400 rpg and with 8x compared to 6x .50" M2 (with ability to chose 4x or 8x in the P-47) the P-47 had an advantage in firing time max firepower and ability to conserve ammo with 4x guns. This was important for both strafing and air to air combat and since both have similar wing mountings in concentrated blocks the layout is easily comparable. The P-38 is more debatable due to the concentrated nose armament with no convergence zone and added 20mm cannon plus an even higher 500 rpg for the .50's.


One other ting to note is that with rocket armaments the HVAR used on the F4U were superior to the "bazooka tube" 3x cluster rocket mounts of USAAF a/c, though the P-38 could carry either. (M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) rocket launcher) The HVAR were more accurate, better trajectory, more powerful, added less drag, and the mounting added very little drag with rockets gone. (opposed to the huge tube launchers of the M10 launchers) The HVAR could also be better adapted to the interceptor role as well, if needed. But the P-47 could have easily been adapted to use the HVAR as well. (though I don't think the D model did in service, the N may have, at least post war)

For rockets the P-47 could carry 6x 4.5" rockets, the F4U 8x 5" HVAR, the P-38 could carry 6x or 12x 4.5" rockets or 10x 5" HVAR.

The F4U carried other things like 2x "Tiny Tim" missiles too, but those were more Navy specific. (the HVAR started that way too though IIRC)


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

The standard load for a P47 was 267 rds per gun which gave a firing time of 17.8 seconds. A max load was 425 rds per gun but was not always carried because of weight considerations. The Corsair had a standard load of 400 rds per gun with a firing time of 26.7 seconds. In early 1943 in the ETO, it would have been handy to have had a fighter that could take off from a short field with an ammo load of 400 rds per gun and 361 gallons of internal fuel or 536 gallons with external tank which would give it a yardstick range of as much as 2200 miles, was very maneuverable, had a sea level top speed of 340 mph and a Vmax at altitude of 395 mph, a rate of climb of 2890 fpm, a service ceiling of 36900 feet, was armored and fully combat capable and had a decent cockpit heater and could do all of these things in an escort mission. The F4U1 could have done that. I don't know of another AC that could have done it as well in that time frame.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2008)

The P38 did that only it was 1300 miles from base. Plus it could easily be converted to the recon role, or used a light bomber (as in the droop snoot role).

Now what plane would you rather be in with engine damage, a few hundred miles from land and nothing but an ocean under you? The P38 or the F4U?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 11, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Now what plane would you rather be in with engine damage, a few hundred miles from land and nothing but an ocean under you? The P38 or the F4U?



Which would you rather be flying when you took damage, radial engine or liquid cooled plane? Miles from home flying over shark infested waters.


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

You have twice as much possibility of engine failure with two engines as with one. That is the reason Lindberg went with one engine. The problem was that when a P38 got hit in the engine, which was much more likely than with a single engine AC, the engine caught on fire and your second engine did you no good. Plus in early 43 in the ETO the P38 had real problems with diving into compressibility, engine failures and the pilots could not stay warm. All of those factors contributed to the high loss rate in the ETO. The following are quotes from a chronology of the P38: Jan 30, 1944 "A quarter of the P38s escorting bombers over Europe return early because of power plant problems." Feb. 4, 1944, "Nearly half of the 20th and 55th FGs Lightnings on escort need to abort with powerplant problems due to severe cold weather. P38s now limit operations to 30000 feet because of potential powerplant troubles." March 3, 1944, " P38s of the 55th FG fly over Berlin, though many pilots have to drop out due to engine problems. The fighter pilots are almost frozen stiff from cold cockpits." March 3, 1944, " The 364th FG goes operational with P38s but is plagued with engine failures. The group commander is killed when both his engines fail. 16 AC fail to return from missions in the month of march. The group stays down at lower warmer altitudes."


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2008)

It doesnt matter what the performace problems of the P38 was in Europe, because those problems didnt happen in the PTO. And then there is the issue of the P38 flying missions in Europe and the Med and going up against the LW, and the Corsair not. 

Now about the engine problem; how would you like to be over the ocean 500 miles from base with engine damage? P38 or F4U?


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

Sys, I know what you are saying and I think that having a second engine under the right circumstances would be safer than with only one engine. However if I was 500 miles from base all over water with a damaged engine in either AC I think I would be taking a bath soon. Do you know how many combat sorties the P38 flew in the PTO?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2008)

Not off hand, although I know they were flying first up in the Aleutians in fall of 1942, and there was a PRG in New Guinea towards the end of 1942.

Eventually they flew in all of the PTO Air Forces (maybe not the 7th, I have to check on that).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 12, 2008)

If it was equal amount of damage to the engines I'd take the Corsair, the R-2800 could continue to run and produce sufficient power to fly (and climb, and get home) with several cylinders out, somwtimes with the entire jug blown off. The P-38 was no good if it lost a single engine if the down engine caught fire (which would be likely) and that engine could not be extinguished as was sometimes the case, in most circumstances though I'd certainly take a P-38 over a P-51 in this theater. Plus with outboard engines you have quite a bit more time to get an engine fire under controll: 1. you dont have flames and oil engulfing the cockpit, 2. you have another engine to keep flying with.

But it should be noted that the F4U had vulnerable oil coolers which could easily be hit by ground fire, drain out, and result in the engine ceasing. The P-47 had a much more protected placement inside the engine compartment.


Granted the F4U was more maneuverable than the P-47 (and by some standards the P-38 ) in addition to slightly lower wing loading it had a high lift airfoil, the same as used on the Fw 190, with an unusually high CL. However with proper tactics the P-47 could out maneuver and out fight the Corsair but both had their advantages. (I'd take the P-47 in a defensive combat suiuation, ie if bounced or evading it had a better chance, especially with some altitude: ~10,000 ft should be sufficient to dive away)


I totally agree on the STOL characteristics (it was a carrier a/c for crying out loud) and I'd bet it was better than the P-38 at this. (though the P-38's fowler flaps helped alot, in maneuvering too) I assume that climb figure is at full (clean) combat weight, otherwise it seems a little low.


But for High altitude escort (crusing above 25,000 ft) the P-47 was the best, kept it's rated power of 2,300 hp over 30,000 ft (depending on turbo unit), very comfortable, well organized, cocpit and good all around performance.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

What do you mean the P38 was no good with only one engine? 

The P47D wasnt up to the task in the PTO due to its poor maneuverability and acceleration at low and middle altitudes where most of the fighting took place, as well as its notoriously short range. In fact, you could make a case that the P40 was better than the P47 in this theater.

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> As for ruggedness, both were equal.



Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.



While this is your opinion which is fine, you have given no proof that the P-38 was the best.

While many others have given proof (real facts, not just general statements)that the Corsair was better. I have seen real proof how tough a Corsair is, I don't remember ever seeing the same sort of information posted for the P-38 on this forum (I could of missed it, post if you have facts to back up your claim of it being as tough as the Corsair).

But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.



Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane. (except in the well known compressibility problems the P38 encountered).

As for reliability, once the logistics issues were worked out, then the availability rates for the P38 were acceptable. In fact, the P38 availability (compared to the carrier based Corsairs) was probably better due to them being land based and had far better access to depot supplies/repair and mechanics.

I asked these things to that 475th FG pilot I met at Chino.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.



The only reason I say the P38 was better, is its range and versatility. 

As for maneuverabilty in the PTO ...... the Japanese planes were so much better in that catagory, theres really no point in trying to compare allied fighters to Japanese fighters.


----------



## renrich (Apr 12, 2008)

I question although I can't prove it that a P38 had any more range with a bomb load than a Corsair. As far as versatility, the Corsair was a better fighter below 25000 feet where the vast majority of ACM took place in all theatres, it was the best fighter bomber of the war, it turned out to be an excellent dive bomber(as accurate as an SBD) was a good recon plane, was a night fighter and could do all these missions and operate off carriers. The P38 was in service in the PTO before the F4U but the Corsair had 2155 kills to the P38's 1700 and although I don't know how many P38 sorties were flown the Corsair had a good sortie to loss ratio of 119 to 1. The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1. I believe that Rex Barber made the statement that if the US had to build one fighter in WW2 it should have been the Corsair. Rex Barber flew the P38 extensively.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

A good indicator of the relative merits of US aircraft is...which ones continued in service after 1945. How long beforethe P-38s and hellcats were retired, and how long dod the Corsair continue in service. As for P-51, dint derivatives continue to fly into the Vietnam war (F-82???).

P-47 is a bit tricky. I believe it wa sold or given to avery two bit hanger on after the war. They did surpisingly well with it as i understand. USAF didnt want them though. Why not? its a genuine question

Michael


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

The P38 had the greatest range of any fighter of WW2, beating the Corsair by a large margin.

The P38 was a far better recon platform as compared to the Corsair because of its extensive range, high altitude capability and big fat nose to mount multiple camera's.

Corsair was a far better dive bomber than the P38. No doubt about that!

But the P38 was a far better light bomber than the Corsair.

Both had equal capabilities in fighting at low and middle altitudes. Remember their was no torque factor for the P38.

P38 was a far safer airplane to land and takeoff compared to the Corsair due to its tricycle gear.

Gunnery? I'd say the edge goes to the P38 because of no convergence issues. But its a close call.

Sortie rate? Hard to compare. If we look at 1944 when the logistics were sorted out, there probably wasn't much difference between the land based Corsairs and the P38's. The sea based Corsairs would have the advantage for short term sortie rate, but decreasing sortie rate over the long haul.

Air kills? The Corsair pilots had far more opportunities to get air kills throughout 1945, simply because there weren't many targets for the land based P38's as compared to the Kamikazi magnets called aircraft carriers. But then, the Corsair wasnt found over NG where most of the fighting in 1943 took place.

Economics, the edge goes to the Corsair. Single engine and smaller airframe makes for an easier production rate. But with the vast production capabilities of the US, it didn't matter the P38 cost more and took longer to build.

Richard Bong said the P38 was the finest fighter in the AAF.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1.....



And put your Corsair into the thick of things with the LW and the hi quality flak, and watch your loss rate go way up.


----------



## renrich (Apr 12, 2008)

Well the pilots at the fighter conference in 1944 did not seem to have a high opinion of the P38. As said before it was rated number one in only one category-worst cockpit. Not sure where you are getting your numbers about range but the only numbers that matter in the real world are combat radius numbers. My reference states that the combat radius of the P38 J and L with 740 gal of fuel has a combat rad. of 650 to 675 miles. The P51D with 419 gals has CR of 700 to 750 miles. Another chart and these are USAAF charts show the P38 has the third best CR with 650 miles, the P51D is second with a CR of 700 miles and the P47N is best of Army fighters with a CR of 1000 miles. That does not support the notion that the "P38 has the longest range of any fighter in WW2." As far as "yardstick" not practical ranges are concerned, a table showing Army Fighter Ranges shows the P38 L with max internal fuel with a range of 1170 miles, the P47 N with max internal fuel with 1700 mile and the P51B/C with max internal fuel with 1275 miles. These are cruise at 10000 feet at most economical power. For Navy fighters on internal fuel most economical cruise speed-F4U1 got 1596 miles. That is substantially better than P38.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2008)

The P38's were going on 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip) in 1944.

And the fighter conference in 1944 didn't include the PTO representation, nor an understanding of the difference in operating conditions and tactics out there.

Please keep the discussion to the F4U and P38 for Pacific operations.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane.
> As for reliability, once the logistics issues were worked out, then the availability rates for the P38 were acceptable. In fact, the P38 availability (compared to the carrier based Corsairs) was probably better due to them being land based and had far better access to depot supplies/repair and mechanics.
> I asked these things to that 475th FG pilot I met at Chino.



There were a hell of alot of land based Corsairs, besides USMC planes there were commonwealth users. (RAAF, RNZAF)

renrich,
It should also be noted that the F4U-1 had the non-sealing wing tanks which were not present on later models. (which thus had shorter range)




syscom3 said:


> The only reason I say the P38 was better, is its range and versatility.
> 
> As for maneuverabilty in the PTO ...... the Japanese planes were so much better in that catagory, theres really no point in trying to compare allied fighters to Japanese fighters.



Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?


syscom3 said:


> What do you mean the P38 was no good with only one engine?
> 
> The P47D wasnt up to the task in the PTO due to its poor maneuverability and acceleration at low and middle altitudes where most of the fighting took place, as well as its notoriously short range. In fact, you could make a case that the P40 was better than the P47 in this theater.
> 
> The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.



(note I edited my previous post to clarify the engine out on P-38 with fire)

And with normal combat load, paddle prop, and increased engine output (due to high octane fuel), the P-47D had very good low-medium altitude performance. Comperable in many ways to the P-38 and F4U. The other 2 had better climb compared to the P-47's ~3,300 ft/min max at ~8,000 ft. (~3,100 ft/min at SL, at just under 14,000 lbs)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2008)

> Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?



Their short range and lack of performance at low and middle altitudes just made them unpopular.

It wasnt untill the "N" model that the P47 had a chance in this theater.


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2008)

KK, of course you are correct that the later model Corsairs like F4U1D did not have the internal wing tanks that were unprotected. However those unprotected wing tanks had a CO2 system to purge them and they would be used first so they were not a problem in combat. I believe they were deleted in later model Corsairs because the AC did not need that additional range because of the common use of one or two belly tanks. The basic Corsair airframe and engine was capable of being adapted for a lot of different missions. If needed it could have been fitted with a different supercharger system(like the F4U5 had) or even turbo charged for better high altitude performance. If it were needed as a very long range fighter, just think what the fuel capacity would have been with the original internal wing tanks and two belly tanks. As we know, some models carried 4- 20mms. The airplane was optimised for the mission the Navy and Marines required, a fighter bomber and later fleet defense. As you know, the original P51s did not have the internal fuselage tank. It was fitted to extend it's range and even though it caused an undesirable CG shift the pilots used it up first and did not try to go into combat with it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2008)

I know, and many fighters also had purging systems (using vented exaust) for drop tanks as well.



You could also argue that the P-47 could have performed better down low with the turbo (and all that ducting) removed and replaced with a 2-speed supercharger setup lie the Corsair. The reduced bulk from removing the ducting making a more streamlined belly and reducing considerable weight.


Of course, the F4U still had the high lift airfoil, and removing the ducting from the P-47 would have the disadvantage for crash landings since the ducting acted as a crushable buffer, absorbing alot of shock amd greatly reducing damage to airframe and pilot.


----------



## renrich (Apr 14, 2008)

KK, there was a recent post about a small air field in Burnet, Texas that had a Mig or two. I posted saying I used to live down the road from that place and that they had a nice airshow every spring. My brother, who is a private pilot, has a Saratoga, lives nearby and he went to the airshow last weekend. Howard Pardue was there with his Bearcat but the neat part was they had an A10 and a P47 there on display and they did a routine together. My brother said it was fun watching them make low passes together. Said the P47 was so loud that he could hardly hear the A10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> Well the pilots at the fighter conference in 1944 did not seem to have a high opinion of the P38. As said before it was rated number one in only one category-worst cockpit.


I think this was from biased "single engine" pilots.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think this was from biased "single engine" pilots.




And it was about the best fighter flying against the LW.

Of course the 5th and 13th AF pilots had a far different opinion about it.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> I have to go with GrG and say it was the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai, Allied Code Name: "George"......
> 
> The plane was just unreal in its flight performance, and when American test pilots first flew it, the couldnt compare anything in the US arsenal to it, because there was nothing we had that was close.....
> 
> ...



As an interceptor I would go with this fighter also - then I would place the P-38L.

As an all around 'best fighter' in PTO I would go F4U-4 or 5 simply because of it's all around high performance, all around capability and the simple fact that it operated from both land and sea.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> And it was about the best fighter flying against the LW.
> 
> *The P-38?
> 
> ...



I probably would also if I had to choose one engine or two over water.. I would sacrifice a little agility for the security. The P-38 was the best all around USAAF fighter in the Pacific.

I was suprised by the study results on the ETO P-38 losses down low in the big strafing days of March-August, 1944 in comparison to 51. Maybe the P-38 was such a big target or loss of one engine on the deck was hard to recover from or most engine losses were accompanied by fire?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

Once the P-38J/L got boosted ailerons agility became competitive with most single engine fighters, and had a slight roll advantage above 350 mph against most contemporaries. Particularly since the dive flaps kept the compressibility problems at bay. (speed still limited to .68 mach)


Does anyone know about fire suppression systems for the P-38's engines? (having the outboard engine should give the pilot a little more time to get it under control since flames aren't enveloping the cockpit)


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

The year the P-38J/L became wide spread operational in ETO, MTO and PTO?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> The year the P-38J/L became wide spread operational in ETO, MTO and PTO?



Hunter - The first J's in widespread use was for the 20th and 55th FG in Jan-Feb 1944. The first dive brake kits trickled into the 20th, 55th and 364th in April. The 479th received the production model J with dive brakes in May. A few L's were delivered to 8th in late July but only the 479th had even a few as the 20th, 55th and 364th had already converted to Mustangs when the L arrived. 

AFAIK the P-38L was not fully operational even with the 479th as I just ran a check and have no history of a P-38L ever lost for any reason in the 8th AF, and all of the 479FG losses in August and September were P-38J's. The 8th AF did get several Droop Snoot P-38L's in late August as lead 'bomber' ship for P-38 horizontal bombing experiments. 

The MTO and 9th AF might have gotten them in the same summer 1944 timeframe - ditto 5th AF...

The 'things' that always bothered me about the P-38 in the ETO is that P-38 equipped groups were at the top of the 'worst fighter loss' days and occupied all of the ' 7 or more lost in air to air combat' missions except for one 78th FG, one 353rd FG (both P-47s - one 8, one 7) and two 4th FG (Mustangs - one 7, one 9) dates.. Ditto MTO. When the P-38's had a bad day they had a very bad day compared to the P-47 and P-51

The other notable fact about the Jug and Mustang losses is that all four of the 7+ days were during the Normandy campaign when they were caught low and slow strafing and bombing on the deck... and even then they gave a decent to good account of themselves...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

Agreed, all I have ever heard from LW pilots is P-38 were easy meat compared (key words is "compared to") to P-51, P-47 and Spitfires.

Meaning I would not want to be flying a P-38 vs LW.

Also from what you are saying really the P-38L really was not a factor b/c of it's late trickle in effect. P-38L really did not make a impact on the war in anyway.

P-38J was the latest model to make any effect on the war, from what you are saying.

Correct Bill?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

Were all those P-38's shot down, or do the losses also include planes that made it home but had so much damage they had to be scrapped? A very different situation, as you'd still be losing the a/c, but not the pilot, and even then the a/c wasn't a total loss as it would be stripped of usable components for use on others.


And the L saw a lot more service in the PTO.

And I don't know if the P-38J would be worse against the LW than its USAAF contemporaries, but it did take a bit more skill to get the most out of a P-38. If a pilot knew the planes capabilities he could out perform the P-51 and p-47 in most circumstances. It was good in the horizontal, good at roll with boosted ailerons, good in a climb, and excellent in level acceleration due to the good power loading.
But it was totally at a disadvantage in a dive, particularly against the P-47D which would max out at ~100 mph faster TAS and accelerate better.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

Ok, so the L saw service vs weaker enemies then the LW.

I have said this before also, on paper the P-38 was a good plane. But it took a good pilot to get that performance out of it, not the average pilot who fly in the USAF. Air forces are judged how good they are based on thier average pilot skill and plane. So even though the P-38J matched up well on paper vs other US planes (P-47 P-51) it could not live up to that. 

When you factored in the pilot and plane, the P-38J was not as good as the P-47 or P-51 in ETO. As proof see its ( P-38 ) losses/sortie compared to others (47 51) in ETO. The P-47 P-51 had many fewer losses per sortie then the P-38. To me that says it all, P-38 in the hands of a average pilot was a sub-standard fighter compared to the P-47 or P-51.

Unless the P-38 was being used in a much different role then the P-47/51 was ever used in, which to my knowledge they were all used in a very similar role. (aka fighter, fighter bomber, recon, lost distance fighter cover)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Agreed, all I have ever heard from LW pilots is P-38 were easy meat compared (key words is "compared to") to P-51, P-47 and Spitfires.
> 
> Meaning I would not want to be flying a P-38 vs LW.
> 
> ...



Not exactly what I meant Hunter - only in ETO was 38L negligible in contribution as a fighter-fighter. 

They went to Pacific and Phillipines for example but even in that context most of the last opportunities for 38 groups to score was Formosa from Phillipines

Having said that, it made more contribution than the P-47N and P-51H and F7F and F-8F - all late entries in the Great War

I have theories about why the P-38J did not succeed to its potential despite being an excellent airplane. Take away the compressibility issues which made it easy for 109s and 190s to dive then make a slow turn to evade the 38H and J, and take away the extreme cold issues affecting reliability in ETO winter.

I think it is simply that the 38 was big and distinctive. The LW pilot who saw it first had easy recognition and could choose to fight or flee.. so most of the fights were in situations where the 38 did not have a significant tactical advantage in position. 

That is my theory..


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Were all those P-38's shot down, or do the losses also include planes that made it home but had so much damage they had to be scrapped? A very different situation, as you'd still be losing the a/c, but not the pilot, and even then the a/c wasn't a total loss as it would be stripped of usable components for use on others.
> 
> *If the question was to me - all the statistics I am talking about are Missing Aircrew - i.e. last seen somewhere behind enemy lines and did not get back to Channel or Manston or CL on friendly soil.*
> 
> ...



But given all those wonderful capabilities the 51 nearly outscored the COMBINED air to air totals for both the P-47 and P-38 in ETO/MTO..despite flying half the time and sorties of either of them - and had a better air to air ratio - how do you figure that?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Hunter, the P38 turned out to be a relatively easy airplane to fly and use in combat.

All it took was some training in one engine flying charchteristics, and the rookie pilots matured into average pilots.

How else can you explain the excellent results of the P38 squads in the Pacific?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Not exactly what I meant Hunter - only in ETO was 38L negligible in contribution as a fighter-fighter.
> 
> They went to Pacific and Phillipines for example but even in that context most of the last opportunities for 38 groups to score was Formosa from Phillipines
> 
> ...



Yeh I corrected my statement in the next post after that one. But thanks.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

sycom3, I think you mean TWO/twin engine training, not one...

And lack of adequate twin engine training was a serious problem. The P-38 also had some special characteristics on engine outs that had to be taught: the plane would roll tward the live engine (opposite of torque) and you had to throttle back the live engine and then slowly throttle up to maintain control. If you went full throttle with the good engine, the plane would flip over and crash.


It didn't take a an above avrage pilot to get the most out of a P-38 much moreso than other a/c. (you always need a good pilot to fly to the limit) An average pilot who'd been properly trained and understood the capabilities and limits of the a/c should do fine. But all to often this was not the scenario.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Hunter,
> How else can you explain the excellent results of the P38 squads in the Pacific?



How do you explain the poor mission/loss, compared to the P-47/51, ratio in ETO?

By the time the P-38 was widely operational, in the PTO, the shallow pilot pool the Japanese had to draw on to recover their losses was getting very shallow indeed. Not to mention I don't think anyone here would ever claim or think that the Japanese Army or Navy could really give the same sort of competition the LW could to the USAF.

You don't really think the Japanese could compete with the LW in quality of planes or pilots from 41 and on do you? The P-38 was going up vs sub quality planes and pilots (and tactics) in the PTO.

Gabreski's 28 kills in the ETO to me is better than Bong's 40 in PTO. Much more impressive was Gabby's 28 kills to me.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I think it is simply that the 38 was big and distinctive. The LW pilot who saw it first had easy recognition and could choose to fight or flee.. so most of the fights were in situations where the 38 did not have a significant tactical advantage in position.
> 
> That is my theory..



P-38 Profile

And the P-47 was also big and distincitve. The Spitfire was distincive but small, and the early Mustangs were sometimes mistaken for 109's. (resulting in some freindly fire incedents)


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

Good point, not sure we can blame it on the P-38 size or distincitive looks.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> P-38 Profile
> 
> And the P-47 was also big and distincitve. The Spitfire was distincive but small, and the early Mustangs were sometimes mistaken for 109's. (resulting in some freindly fire incedents)



Head on from a mile away a 47 looked like a 190 as it did running parallel. Bomber gunners studied 47/190 and 51/109/spit profiles

B-17 bgunners were egalitarian - they shot at everything

The 38 looked like nothing else in the air in the ETO..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

From that POV the P-38's looks were a big advantage.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> From that POV the P-38's looks were a big advantage.



It is as far as getting shot at by bomber gunners - but not if you are 'hunting and for equal eyesight I can spot your P-38 1.5x as far away and make a decision to stalk or slink away.

I may be wrong in my thesis. What is your explanation for relatively poor performance versus the Mustang?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I may be wrong in my thesis. What is your explanation for relatively poor performance versus the Mustang?



The P-51 was a better plane in the hands of an average pilot?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> The P-51 was a better plane in the hands of an average pilot?



I personally think the P-51 was a better air superiority fighter - period. It is a relatively easy airplane to fly, it has a lot of good characteristics under ordinary flight profiles, it is dangerous with a full fuselage tank, but it is a forgiving aircraft which gives you warning on almost every stall condition.

If you knew the airplane you had more advantages than disadvantages against every airplane it fought except the Ta 152 and the H would have equalized that a lot.. in a dogfight in the Horizontal it sould avoid all Japanese a/c - but that was the same for every US and Brit fighter.

In my opinion the only US fighter on par with the 51 as an air superiortity fighter against LW was the F4U which didn't have the opportunity to prove this thesis... this is the primary reason the Mustang is held in high esteem.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I personally think the P-51 was a better air superiority fighter - period. It is a relatively easy airplane to fly, it has a lot of good characteristics under ordinary flight profiles, it is dangerous with a full fuselage tank, but it is a forgiving aircraft which gives you warning on almost every stall condition.
> 
> If you knew the airplane you had more advantages than disadvantages against every airplane it fought except the Ta 152 and the H would have equalized that a lot.. in a dogfight in the Horizontal it sould avoid all Japanese a/c - but that was the same for every US and Brit fighter.
> 
> In my opinion the only US fighter on par with the 51 as an air superiortity fighter against LW was the F4U which didn't have the opportunity to prove this thesis... this is the primary reason the Mustang is held in high esteem.



I agree most of your post, 90% anyways.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I agree most of your post, 90% anyways.



Remember I am not talking about say a Spit XIVor XXI or a Tempest V or a P-47M/N at 30,000 feet and above or a very rare Fw 190D-13 in perfect condition.

Every a/c is atrade off but the 51 was so clean that it had better performance at the tag end of a performance profile when every one else was close to fagging out...

It was NOT the Best WWII fighter. I do believe it was the best Air Speriority fighter based on the level of competition and it's ultimate contributions in this domain.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 14, 2008)

Under those conditions I am more inclined to agree with you. I do love the range the P-51 offered more then anything, it could reach out and touch you where most fighters could not. Those other fighters that could reach you at that range could not offer you the performance the P-51 could.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

It is interesting to note though that the 2 Highest scoring USAAF pilots in the ETO did so with P-47's early war to boot.

I seem to remember some pilots' oppinios of the P-47 that had transferred to the P-51 had said, while the Mustang was a 'hotter' dogfighter thy'd still rather have the Jug's securety. (plus I don't think there was any fighter in common service with as comfortable a cocpit as the P-47)

THe P-51 was probably a better air superiorety fighter and escort thean the Jug, and I'd imagine from the Bomber crews' POV they'd prefer to see P-51's, but from a fighter pilots view I'd imagine the T-Bolt to be more desireable. (especially pilots that had experienced the ruggedness first hand, and likely had been saved by it)

There were few fighter that could be bounced with enemy 20mm balzing around the craft and still manage to take some hits and make it home or even possibly stay in the fight. (Robert S. Johnson'd P-47C had ~20 20mm shel holes as well as hundreds of .30 cal hits from his near fatal experience)

The Corsair would come close in ruggedness though. And its overall capabilities were better.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> It is interesting to note though that the 2 Highest scoring USAAF pilots in the ETO did so with P-47's early war to boot.
> 
> I seem to remember some pilots' oppinios of the P-47 that had transferred to the P-51 had said, while the Mustang was a 'hotter' dogfighter thy'd still rather have the Jug's securety. (plus I don't think there was any fighter in common service with as comfortable a cocpit as the P-47)
> 
> ...



KK- The 56th FG had the two top aces in the ETO in Gabreski and Johnson.. Several other 'all P-47' scorers included Glenn Duncan and Schilling and Mahurin.. but remember that the 56th was in combat 6 months before the 354th FG, 9 months before the 357th FG and 4 months before the 352nd (which started out in P-47s). Johnson had all of his scores by March 8, when the 4th and 355th FG had just converted to Mustangs... 

The 4th FG, 352nd FG, 355th FG pilots that flew both and went on to round out the top 5 scoring groups in the 8th said 'no contest' in discussing merits of Mustang vs P-47 in air to air combat. All of them got most of their air to air scores in the 51.. the only combined P-47/P-51 groups that scored less in a Mustang was the 353rd and 78th - both converting in December, 1944 timeframe when the LW was hard to find relative to 9 months before.

All of them started out way behind the 56th in scoring. From the time the 355th, 4th and 352 and 357th FG received their Mustangs they outscored the 56th in the air and every one of those groups except 357th outscored them on the Ground.

The 354th (8th/9th) far outscored the 56th from the time they started combat six months after the 56th FG and nearly caught up with them in total air to air..They were forced to fly 47s from Dec 44 to Feb 45 and were glad to get back in 51's despite the ground support role.

So, what conclusions do you draw relative to Mustang vs P-47 as an air superiority fighter?

Ruggedness is important for those times when the enemy fighter had the advantage - not so important when you had the advantage.


----------



## airboiy (Apr 15, 2008)

hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2008)

airboiy said:


> hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?


Because for the most part it got mauled....


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 15, 2008)

airboiy said:


> hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?




Good plane, not great, but good. Too few, even fewer spare parts to keep them flying, even fewer good Japanese pilots who knew how to fly them properly.


----------



## renrich (Apr 15, 2008)

If one believes that the P38 (which I do) belongs on the "premier" list of US fighters, along with P47,P51, F4U and F6F, the P38 was a long way in front of the other "premier" fighters being deployed and in combat in the Pacific. The first combat in the "Pacific" for P38 was on Aug 9, 1942, when two Lightnings shot down two Jap flying boats near Alaska. On Aug 22, 1942, the 67th FS made up of P400s and P38s arrived at Henderson Field, Guadalcanal. By October, 42, there were 60 P38s in the PTO but they were plagued with problems which hindered their getting into combat. First combat for the P38 in the SW Pacific is on Dec 27, 1942 over New Guinea. Interesting that the airplane had been in theatre since August but not in combat until December. The next "premier" fighter to be deployed in the PTO was the F4U, in February, 1943.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

Agree on the P-47, but let's not focus too much this particular discussion (albeit started by me) as it belong here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p51-vs-p47-273-12.html
And this one has some interesting discussions on it: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw-190-vs-spit-p-51-p-47-a-4849.html

One interesting thing to think about
(From the opening of the second thread): 


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There was an interesting documentary on the N24 a German documentary and news TV channel about the Fw-190. They talked about the development and the Butcher Bird in action. They interviewed several members of the Wilde Sau unit and several other Luftwaffe units. The show is coming back on TV tonight and I will have to watch it again for names of the pilots. They also interviewed several USAAF pilots who flew against the Fw-190.
> 
> All of the Luftwaffe pilots had these things to say about the allied aircraft.
> 
> ...






And... Back to the Pacific.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 15, 2008)

Interesting,

I have read the same thing from LW vets, they respected and feared the P-47 more then any other Allied fighter.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Interesting,
> 
> I have read the same thing from LW vets, they respected and feared the P-47 more then any other Allied fighter.



I have talked to some, it all depends on whom and when. I' have heard Spifire, Mustang and P-47 from different pilots

The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire - I am still having trouble getting those statistics.. but the Spit fought a lot longer.

Zemke is a notable P-47 scorer that liked the 51 better air to air against the LW when he took over the 479th, although he loved the Thunderbolt.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

> The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire



Its easier to shoot down enemy fighters when they're busy shooting down bombers, the Spitfire pilots didn't get that luxury. The P-51 for the most part also got to fight at its best altitude, again a luxury the Spitfire didn't enjoy to the same extent. Hence the very high losses the Spitfire suffered.

The point is however that the Mustang was great as it allowed the Allies to protect their bombers, but as an individual air superiority fighter it wasn't anything special, the latest Fw-190, Spitfire Bf-109's being better in terms of performance agility. But good it was and very fast esp. at its introduction, and it did well.

As for killing the most LW pilots, well that honor goes to the Spitfire hands down.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> Its easier to shoot down enemy fighters when they're busy shooting down bombers, the Spitfire pilots didn't get that luxury. The P-51 for the most part also got to fight at its best altitude, again a luxury the Spitfire didn't enjoy to the same extent. Hence the very high losses the Spitfire suffered.
> 
> The point is however that the Mustang was great as it allowed the Allies to protect their bombers, but as an individual air superiority fighter it wasn't anything special, the latest Fw-190, Spitfire Bf-109's being better in terms of performance agility. But good it was and very fast esp. at its introduction, and it did well.
> 
> As for killing the most LW pilots, well that honor goes to the Spitfire hands down.



Ah I knew someone would have the facts on this.. What are they Soren? How many LW fighters did the Spitfire claim? Source?

And what other fighter than the Mustang gained air superiority over Germany?

And to point/question of air superiority. 

would you say the Spitfire achieved that over UK? Did they manage over German territory? Did the 109 and 190 dominate over USSR/East? How did they manage against the Mustang over their own territory and specifically over Germany? Did any other fighter achieve air superiority over Germany?


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

Well lets see Bill, the Spitfire fought from the BoB till the end of the war, the P-51 first started its career THREE years later in 1943! It's a no'brainer.

The Spitfire was responsible for allot of LW fighters and bombers shot down in BoB alone, and it didn't stop fighting the LW from then on. The P-51 hardly shot down any bombers, and the number of fighters it shot down I sincerely doubt is as high as that of the Spitfire.

One has to remember the time of introduction for these two a/c as one served 3 more years than the other.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2008)

lets get back to the Pacific.

I still dont see anything contrary to the P38 not being the best.

The Corsair was a great fighter, but in 1943 and 1944, the P38 was supreme.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well lets see Bill, the Spitfire fought from the BoB till the end of the war, the P-51 first started its career THREE years later in 1943! It's a no'brainer.
> 
> The Spitfire was responsible for allot of LW fighters and bombers shot down in BoB alone, and it didn't stop fighting the LW from then on. The P-51 hardly shot down any bombers, and the number of fighters it shot down I sincerely doubt is as high as that of the Spitfire.
> 
> One has to remember the time of introduction for these two a/c as one served 3 more years than the other.



Well - 'no brainer' as it may be for you, consider this. The P-38 fought the LW since Nov 1942, the P-47 since Apr 1943 and both were far behind the Mustang. The Spitfire fought from late 1939 and engaged quite a bit so it raises the question doesn't it? 

Like the P-47 the Spitfire was largely fighting smaller clashes with the LW from 1942 forward.. steady but small. Ditto P-47 and P-38 in 1943 and 1944 up to D-Day. The 51 was fighting and winning big air battles over Germany while the 47 and Spitfire and Tempest and Typhoons and Hurricanes were on the periphery due to lack of range and lack of incentive for LW day fighters to come up and fight,

But I asked for facts and you give me 'no brainer'.. what is your fact base Soren? How many awards for LW fighters were assigned to Spitfires? Specifically a 'number'... and the source for the number.

You may doubt it (Mustang shot down higher number of fighters). I expressed doubt also - but my doubt was based on "I don't know because I haven't found the facts yet". 

This is interesting if you have facts. Otherwise it is not interesting.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> lets get back to the Pacific.
> 
> I still dont see anything contrary to the P38 not being the best.
> 
> The Corsair was a great fighter, but in 1943 and 1944, the P38 was supreme.



They were both great. The P-38 had some performance advantage, the F4U had some performance advantages. The F4u could operate from land and sea. It engaged more and destroyed more and lost fewer air to air than the 38 (IIRC). The F4U was cheaper. The F4U continued stellar service through the Korean War. The P-38 did not.

It's a matter of preference for many but certainly not a 'clear win' for the P-38. 

I picked the F4U because I think it was a slightly better air fighter than the 51, that the 51 was better air fighter than the 38 (in my opinion), and the F4U derivatives which went into Korean War were better air to ground platforms for ground support than any P-38. I'm having a hard time finding data to support that a P-38 was more survivable as a strafer than a 51 - at least with 8th AF statistics from the Macrs.

I also think the P-38 was the greatest fighter 'we could have built' in WWII had the program not been set back two years and had a P-38L in the air in late 1942 - but it was and it wasn't.

I am really not that passionate about arguing either position except that I would clearly buy all F4U's in 1942 if I had to pick one fighter for the rest of the war.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

Bill do you even consider the fact that the Spitfire was responsible for a huge loss of LW bombers transports ? Do you also realize that LW bombers transports often featured a crew of 5 or more ?

And as for tallies well do you have info which suggests that the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire ? (In the air that is)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill do you even consider the fact that the Spitfire was responsible for a huge loss of LW bombers transports ? Do you also realize that LW bombers transports often featured a crew of 5 or more ?
> 
> And as for tallies well do you have info which suggests that the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire ? (In the air that is)



How many Spitfire awards Soren for LW fighters - the central question and the repeated request.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

The central question ?? 

You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!

Now as if this isn't enough you're also claiming that the P-51 was resposible for more LW casualties than the Spitfire, something which just doesn't add up to the already known facts. The Spitfire did afterall shoot down over 600 a/c during the BoB alone, many of them being bombers. The Spitfire was also responsible for allot of LW transports shot down, among these a numbrt of Me-323's.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> The central question ??
> 
> You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!



Soren - please go back to my original comment. You will see, given an average reading comprehension ability that I said no such thing. In fact I stated that I thought it highly possible that the Spitfire shot down more LW fighters than the Mustang _ I JUST COULD NOT FIND THE FACTS!. 

Please parse these words and tell us how you came to your conclusion - this is EXACTLY what I wrote

* The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire - I am still having trouble getting those statistics.. but the Spit fought a lot longer.
*

You jumped in like a fat toad and said it was a 'no brainer'. 

I asked you for facts (one way or another) and we get to this point.

Stop. 

You owe me (still) an explanation for why you thought 'suction' in Lednicer's models were 'drag'.... and why anyone with any knowledge of aero could think otherwise?

Three weeks ago you said you would be 'right back' on that discussion and I am still waiting from the self proclaimed aerodynamics expert. You laid low for two weeks (on vacation?) and thought that blooper would go away.

It hasn't.

How many LW fighters awarded to Spitfires makes it a 'no brainer'?? And when does 'suction' equate to 'drag' in a finite element, distributed vortices model? Simple facts. No ad hominem attacks, please

You scheduled to go on vacation again?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 15, 2008)

Can we please keep this on subject here guys, many of us want to keep this thread from getting closed like others. Perhaps one of you could open a thread on the subject you are talking about.

Thread is about PTO fighters.

Respectfully Hunter


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

Huh ?

You wrote this Bill "_You may doubt it (Mustang shot down higher number of fighters). _" which looks like a claim to me. Or perhaps I misinterpreted it ? (Its 4 AM where I'm at this moment and Im on watch)

And what's with the sudden paranoia Bill? You seriously think I've been away from the forum because of a discussion we had ? Bill I could care less, besides the discussion was over in my eyes. 

And as to suction, well I thought we had settled this already, and yes suction equals drag. A razorback design has less drag than a bubble canopy one, the simple reason being that there's not the turbulent area right behind the canopy creating extra drag. I thought you understood this.

The sudden drop over the top of the canopy is what causes the boundary layer to seperate, causing turbulence to the rear(Hence the stability issue), and therefore extra drag. It's the same with bullets Bill, if you say cut way the boattail you'll get sooner seperation and more turbulence which means more drag, hence why spitzer bullets aren't as drag efficient as boattailed ones.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Thank you Hunter.

OK .... lets list the attributes between the F4U and P38.

Airframe strength: F4U
This is then offset because neither airframe was known to be weak. As I argued with Soren in another thread, once you reach a point in design where it does the job, anything more is just gold plating.

Guns: Tie - four .50's in a nose config. is as deadly as six .50's in the wings. I don't think the 4 x 20mm's for the Corsair was all that prevelaint.

Gunnery: P38. No convergence issues.

Payload: P38. 4000 pound payload with the ability to have a droop snoot type light bomber.

Range: P38 by a large margin.

Performance. Even at low and middle altitudes. P38 has an edge up high.

Ease of flying: P38. No torque factors and tricycle landing gears.

Dive performance: F4U by a good margin.

Production factors: F4U for cost and man hours to build.

Logistics: Slight edge to the F4U. But when on a carrier, huge edge to the P38.

Variants and roles: Slight edge to the P38 as its role as a photo-recon fighter. 

Pilot training: Once the twin engine curriculum was perfected in 1943, it probably worked out even. More hours needed for the P38 for the twin engine, offset by the USN needing more hours to qualify pilots for carrier ops.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 15, 2008)

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> nice outline Soren.
> 
> 1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.



I meant that when the Corsair was carrier based, its supportability dropped by a huge margin, as compared to a P38 on a ground base, with all the supporting depots.

When the Corsair was land based, the supportability would have been equal.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 16, 2008)

Ah.......got it. Thanks


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

According to "Air and Space, Smithsonian" in a recent article comparing Spitfire to Hurricane, Spitfire shot down 529 EA in BOB, not 600 as recently stated in this forum. Good article. Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also: Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38; Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability; Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior. Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine) Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit. A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire. Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also:



Fair enough



> Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38;



The P38's flew 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip). Show me the F4U doing that. Thats a HUGE edge.





> Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability;



But then the P38 and F4U were both fighting against the Japanese fighters which were far more maneuverable, and not against themselves. So the question on who has the best maneuverability is kind of irrleveant.



> Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior.



So the torque issues of that big paddle blade prop is not a factor? 



> Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine)



Once the industrial might of the AAF was felt, there were so many spare parts available, it meant nothing. And then if the Corsair was on an carrier, then its logistical requirements went up dramatically, including the disposal overboard of moderatly damaged aircraft that could not be fixed on board.

Now about the tricycle gear.... flyboy has some definate opinions on how good that was for takeoff and landings, especially in poor visibility and rotten airstrips.



> Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit.



But the Corsair was not a level "light bomber" like the P38 Droop Snoot version. Nor was the Corsair anywhere nearly as good as the F4 and F5 phot recon types. In fact the P38 gets a huge extra credit for this for performing fantastic service in that role. Long range, big camera payload and high altitude capability!

P38 gets the nod for this. BTW, did you know the P38 was also rated as a torpedo bomber?



> A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire.



And a single golden bullet into the single engine of the Corsair was definatly a mission stopper. Two engines means you can get home.



> Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.



True. Bit there are many Spitfire, P51 and -109 aces that say any aircraft was vulnerable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Now about the tricycle gear.... flyboy has some definate opinions on how good that was for takeoff and landings, especially in poor visibility and rotten airstrips.


IMO if all WW2 fighters had tricycle landing gear you probably would have seen at least a 20% reduction in landing/ takeoff/ taxi accidents. The advantage of the tail wheel aircraft was apparent when operating out of dirt or grass fields but that was about it. The extra weight and additional systems in incorporating a nose wheel paid for itself in equipment and pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> nice outline Soren.
> 
> 1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/allied-tests-captured-bf-109-s-12456-7.html#post345064

Thor - I'm taking the 'lift/drag debate out of here as it doesn't belong but reference the model and interpretations if you want to evaluate Soren's comments.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Guys

I am impressed by the knowledge you guys have on these two aircraft. Its impressive. I asked this question before....and I can honestly say I am neutral on the the great P-38/F4U debate.....why did the Corsair continue in US service for quite some time after the war (indeed it stayed in production I believe until 1952), when the P-38 was withdrawn from service more or less immediately after the war. I just dont understand how the Lightning can be judged a better aircraft with that historical fact hanging over its head....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Guys
> 
> I am impressed by the knowledge you guys have on these two aircraft. Its impressive. I asked this question before....and I can honestly say I am neutral on the the great P-38/F4U debate.....why did the Corsair continue in US service for quite some time after the war (indeed it stayed in production I believe until 1952), when the P-38 was withdrawn from service more or less immediately after the war. I just dont understand how the Lightning can be judged a better aircraft with that historical fact hanging over its head....


One of the reasons whey the P-38 was immediately withdrawn from service was purely economics - it simply cost more to maintain a multi-engine aircraft when compared to a single engine aircraft, plain and simple. 

If you want to believe the author Martin Cadin, he claims there was a squadron of P-38s maintained in Korea until 1949 or 1950 (reference his book "Forked Tailed Devil"). He claimed to have cut them up and buried them in a large ditch. 

I'm not aware of when the very last P-38 was removed from the USAF inventory but I've always had a hard time believing this story.

After the war several P-38s found their way to Honduras. A former neighbor Col. Mike Alba trained their pilots and developed their first air combat schools.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> One of the reasons whey the P-38 was immediately withdrawn from service was purely economics - it simply cost more to maintain a multi-engine aircraft when compared to a single engine aircraft, plain and simple.
> 
> If you want to believe the author Martin Cadin, he claims there was a squadron of P-38s maintained in Korea until 1949 or 1950 (reference his book "Forked Tailed Devil"). He claimed to have cut them up and buried them in a large ditch.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't dispute Caiden but would offer that most references have the P-38 retired from active duty USAF in 1949.. 

Even as a 5 year old young kid on June 25th in Tokyo, I could sense the urgency over the NK attack. The USAF fought with what they had and what they had was 18th and 35th FBW equipped with 51s. It is inconceivable to me that USAF would not fly P-38s from Korea or Japan if they had been available in June 1950.

My father had just left command of 35th FBW and stepped up to 5th AF HQ at the time

IIRC there P-47s in the Phillipines at the time (1949) but I am not sure of this. I believe all the P-47s were moved to National Guard units in late 1949 and 1950 and the ones in the Phillipines came home before the Korean War started. 

If P-38s were in theatre I expect they would have come home at same time as P-47s to simplify logistics to one airplane and there were a lot more P-51s than P-38s and 47s combined in 1947 forward when SAC got completely out of the P-47 business.

Net - I do NOT know for sure about the timing of P-47 and P-38 from Far East Command.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I wouldn't dispute Caiden but would offer that most references have the P-38 retired from active duty USAF in 1949..
> 
> Even as a 5 year old young kid on June 25th in Tokyo, I could sense the urgency over the NK attack. The USAF fought with what they had and what they had was 18th and 35th FBW equipped with 51s. It is inconceivable to me that USAF would not fly P-38s from Korea or Japan if they had been available in June 1950.


Cadin writes a line or two about this and how he witnessed their (the P-38s) destruction with his own eyes. If I remember correctly he mentions there were about 20 of them. He goes on to talk about the NK invasion and how having those aircraft might of made things easier....


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.

Plain and simple.

The USN had problems early on with carrier capable jet aircraft so it was natural they would hang on to the F4U for awhile.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> The USN had problems early on with carrier capable jet aircraft so it was natural they would hang on to the F4U for awhile.



That seems like the definition of replaceable. The P-38 was replaceable by the P80. 

While the world's leading air force manufacturer still could not replace the F4U.

Well said Syscom.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Why hang onto piston engines when you can use a jet?

No matter how you try to spin it, the Corsair was obsolete in 1946 and the only reason the navy and marines held onto it was there was no suitable jet replacement for it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

As FBJ said it was mostly due to economics that the P-38 didn't stay longer. The USAAF had decided the P-51 was to be the piston engined fighter to keep while the rest of focus was to be on the jets. This was seen to be a rater poor decision as in the post war era the piston engined fighters were most useful as fighter-bombers,in ground attack and close support roles. (and where taking of from small/rough airfields was required, which almost any piston engined fighter could do over a jet) 

These were not something the P/F-51 was not particularly adept at performing. The P-47 would have been a better choice. (arguably the P-38 would as well, but the higher costs/maintenance would be a disadvantage)


The F4U on the other hand served well in these roles in Korea compared to the P-51.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's flew 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip). Show me the F4U doing that. Thats a HUGE edge.
> 
> *The F4U-1 with wing tanks and full 486 US gal. of external fuel had very good range; later models deleted the wing tanks as this range wasn't required for what the USN needed. I don't have the figures but a couple here have mentioned it*
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with everything else.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Why hang onto piston engines when you can use a jet?
> 
> No matter how you try to spin it, the Corsair was obsolete in 1946 and the only reason the navy and marines held onto it was there was no suitable jet replacement for it.



So you are agreeing then? The USA needed the Corsair longer then it needed the P-38, agreed.

1) Syscom for the most part I am just playing devil's advocate in this discussion, as I often do. Its helps the information flow when we all do not agree on everything. 8) 

2) Syscom you need to loosen your collar little if you can't tell I am just having a little fun with you......admittly at your expense.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> ...



Interesting logic - what is behind it?

The P-80 went into production in 1945 and stopped in 1950

The P-82 went into production in 1946 and stopped in 1949

The F-84A/B went into production in 1947 followed by C/D

The last P-38 came off in 1945 along with the 51H and the 51H remained in ADC then ANG until 1957.

The P-82 replaced the P-38, and P-47N for long range escort of SAC in 1947 and replaced the P-61 as a night fighter and the P-82E was the last piston engine escort for SAC in 1951 and 1952 for Alaska route. It was finally replaced by F-94 for night fighter role.

So how was P-38 in any way tied to P-80 production? What role was the 38 performing that kept it in the inventory even as long as 1948-49?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

> The F4U on the other hand served well in these roles in Korea compared to the P-51.



We are talking about WW2, not Korea.

After all, the P80, F84 and F86 were far superior to the P51 and F4U.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> As FBJ said it was mostly due to economics that the P-38 didn't stay longer. The USAAF had decided the P-51 was to be the piston engined fighter to keep while the rest of focus was to be on the jets. This was seen to be a rater poor decision as in the post war era the piston engined fighters were most useful as fighter-bombers,in ground attack and close support roles. (and where taking of from small/rough airfields was required, which almost any piston engined fighter could do over a jet)
> 
> These were not something the P/F-51 was not particularly adept at performing. The P-47 would have been a better choice. (arguably the P-38 would as well, but the higher costs/maintenance would be a disadvantage)
> 
> ...




And the USAF had a suitable replacement for P-51, P-38 and P-47 in ground support role with F-84 although the numbers were not high enough to replace the 51 in 1950/1951. 

As Syscom noted the USN didn't quite have a jet replacement although the F9 served in Korea... and the AD certainly served but not enough to go around.

Additionally the AU-1 derivative was superb in ground attack role but not fair to throw in the Best PTO Fighter discussion. Hard to argue that either the F4U-5 or P-38L could compare to it in that mission.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.

The AAF and USN knew that immediatly. The difference was the jet engine technology at the time was not up to par for the performance needed for carrier ops.

Dont you agree that it was a wise choice to have Lockheed concentrate on building P80's rather than P38's?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

I know, but we were talking about what happened to these fighters in the post war era. i wasn't trying to use this for justification over the P-38.

And the P-80 and F-84 couldn't operate from small rough airfields near the front early in the Korean war. (and the F-86 wasn't even there yet) The high speeds also meant they were not as well suited to the close support role. But the F-80 was decent in the GA role after the F-86 had taken over the air superiority role, though the F-84E/G was the best jet fighter-bomber of the bunch.


And for the Navy, don't forget that they had the F2H Banshee too, not just the F9F/F-9 Panther, speaking of twin engines for reliability. Plus the Banshee turned out to be the better fighter bomber of the two. (the Banshee was a bit faster as well at normal gross weight clean configuration)

But again we're getting way off topic...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> So you are agreeing then? The USA needed the Corsair longer then it needed the P-38, agreed.



Yes. 

But thats an indication the technology for jet engines for naval ops wasnt there yet.

A more proper question for post WW2 aircraft is what was the better plane, Corsair or Skyraider.


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

Sys, as usual you make some good points. Obviously I have never flown a P38 or F4U(except in my dreams) and I have only a few solo hours in an Atlas Skyrocket so all I can go on is what other people have written about both AC. Let me quote from Dean in "America's One Hundred Thousand'" about the P38. "The P38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam bang" maneuvers and had a particularly slow initial response in roll due to a high lateral inertial characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said" It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard and just have the P38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing." That doesn't sound like fun when surprised by a Zero! He goes on to say that power boosted ailerons introduced later improved roll characteristics at high speeds but did nothing to improve them at low to moderate speeds. Now from the same book on the Corsair. " A company test pilot claimed "Throwing the stick hard would roll the airplane more than 180 degrees per second." "There is no question, however, that the Corsair roll performance was very good for a WW2 US fighter." From Richard Linnekin in "80 knots to Mach 2." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable, not objectionable, control forces. It had a comforting, solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as in the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans." Speaking of gunnery runs in the Corsair Linnekin said, " The Corsair was the most comfortable airplane I had yet flown in a gunnery pattern." "In a Corsair, for the first time I let the airplane do most of the work, correcting only as necessary. I think that control harmonisation made that possible." Let me add that Linnekin was not just a Navy pilot but an aero engineer and test pilot. Now from the fighter conference in 1944 and these comparisons have nothing to do with ETO or PTO but rather flying characteristics. Best all around cockpit-F4U4- second, P38 not rated. Best engine controls-F4U-fourth, P38-ninth and last. Best all around armor-F4u-second, P38 not mentioned. Best overload takeoff from a small area-F4U-second. P38- third. Best ailerons at 350 mph-F4u-second, P38L-third. Best ailerons at 100 mph, F4u-second, P38L- sixth. Best elevators-F4U-First, P38L-seventh. Best rudder-F4U-second, P38L third. Nicest all around stability-F4U-second, P38L-seventh. Best characteristics 5 mph above stall-P38L-third, F4U sixth. Best dive stability and control-F4U-first, P38L-eighth. Best instrument and night flying qualities- F4U-third, P38- fifth. Best fighter above and below 25000 feet F4U rated better than P38L. Best production carrier based fighter-F4U- first, P38 can't operate from carrier. Best fighter bomber-F4U-first, P38L- fifth. Best strafer, F4U - second, P38L-fifth. As far as range is concerned official USAAF charts show P38L with 740 gallons of gas with max combat radius of action of 650 miles. How much gas did they have for those 2600 mile missions and what was the ordnance load? The Corsair was deployed to the Pacific more than six months after the P38 and had 2155 kills to 1700 for the P38. The Corsair flew 64051 combat sorties and dropped 15, 621 tons of bombs which I have to believe was more than the P38. The Corsair had 189 losses to enemy AC and 349 to enemy triple A. What are the comparable statistics as far as the P38? The P38 was not desirable in the CBI because of gasoline and parts shortages and was drawn down in numbers there as soon as possible. I agree with Rex Barber of P38 fame when he said that if the US had to build one fighter it should have been the Corsair.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2008)

Big paragragh, LOL.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

The slow roll problems of the P-38 were solved with the introduction of boosed ailerons on the late J models.



> The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter.


 But the roll advantage was only at high speeds as seen here: P-38L Roll Chart


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

When the war ended an immdiate stop order went into affect on the P-38 production line.

Went to JoeB's site and through notes attached to the Serial Number list, the last USAAF/ USAF P-38s went away in 1947, at least based on the information listed.

1944 USAAF Serial Numbers (44-001 to 44-30910)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.


Was it? How about on a carrier as earlier pointed out? Also consider close support roles where jets couldn't support because of fuel consumption. As a front line air-to-air fighter, yes, for some other roles, no.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

That what I said.  Plus the capability of operating of small/rough airstrips was an advantage as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Big paragragh, LOL.



It does make it tough to read it.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Was it? How about on a carrier as earlier pointed out? Also consider close support roles where jets couldn't support because of fuel consumption. As a front line air-to-air fighter, yes, for some other roles, no.



Yes, any piston engined military aircraft after 1946 was on borrowed time. Anything after the late 40's was the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Yes, any piston engined military aircraft after 1946 was on borrowed time. Anything after the late 40's was the exception rather than the rule.



Really? 

Then why is the C-130 still being used today?

Edit: I just re-read your post and realized it was about piston aircraft and not prop aircraft. 

C-130 is a turbo prob and not a piston aircraft...

Sorry about that sys.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Yes, any piston engined military aircraft after 1946 was on borrowed time. Anything after the late 40's was the exception rather than the rule.



Douglas Skyraider - 1946-1974 - 28 years.

Douglas A-26 (B-26) - 1944-1972 - 28 years.

North American T-28 - 1949 - 1984 - 35 years.

I don't know Sys, with just 2 attack and one trainer I come up with 91 years worth of borrowed time!

How about C-54s, C-119, C-121s, and C-123s - all military transports used well into the jet age?!?!?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2008)

Joe, you are good. LOL

The Great Gazoo strikes again!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe, you are good. LOL
> 
> The Great Gazoo strikes again!



Thanks!


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

Sorry guys, I am a hunt and peck typist and have not figured out how to do paragraphs on a computer. I apologise. But yes, piston engined AC still had their uses long after WW2. The early jets did not have the short field capabilities of the props plus many could not carry the loads and did not have the range and loiter time and were not as accurate with bombs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

Oh - and let's not forget this one - first flew in 1945, entered service in 1946....

33 years worth of "borrowed time."


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 16, 2008)

Although I do not think the Hellcat is the best fighter in the Pacific, I do think it was one of, if not the most important plane in the Pacific. How would things have turned out if the Navy had to fly to the Wildcat until the Corsair was approved for carrier use? I think it was the right plane at the right time. It definitely turned the tide in favor of the Allies in the Pacific air war.

I'm not all that familiar with too masny of the IJN planes other than the Zero.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 16, 2008)

I had to go with the P-38. Although as i said, I think the Hellcat was the most vital or important plane. But with the ability to pick when and where you fight, dive in and climb out, Cheddar changed my mind. The P-38 was not always the top in every category, but it close to the top in almost all performance categories.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Douglas Skyraider - 1946-1974 - 28 years.
> 
> Douglas A-26 (B-26) - 1944-1972 - 28 years.
> 
> ...



Only three? I thought you could come up with dozens! Sounds like they were an exception to the rule.

Like I said, any piston engined airplane after the 40's was living on borrowed time.

Now tell me what piston engined aircraft were front line bombers or fighters?

BTW, the C119 and C123's were retrofitted with jet engines so as to not be totally useless.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Only three? I thought you could come up with dozens! Sounds like they were an exception to the rule.



No they were the only US combat aircraft in production during the span you gave and look how long all of them served!!! I think you forgot that a major war just ended and no one was really rushing to produce aircraft in the capacity like WW2...



syscom3 said:


> Like I said, any piston engined airplane after the 40's was living on borrowed time.



And the "three" I showed were far from that "exception to the rule." If a doctor told me I was on borrowed time and then lived another 30 years, I'd say he was full of sh*t!


syscom3 said:


> Now tell me what piston engined aircraft were front line bombers or fighters?



For the most part, none but B-29, B-50 - both front line until the B-36 came along, and yes, it did have jet engines but was still a recip, as did the C-119 and the C-123 which were fitted with jets because there was a short field requirement placed on these aircraft after they were initially developed. They flew very well without the jet engines and I even seen a C-123 in operation at Mojave without the jet engines. It's owner removed them because they drank too much fuel. 

The point here is your statement about recips being on borrowed times was just not true.

BTW - The TBF Avenger served into the late 1950s....

The last Corsair rolled off the assembly line in 1952....

The last B-25s left the USAF in the early 1960.....

The last B-29s were retired in 1960........

In fact the USAF did not become an "All Jet Bomber Force" until 1960.

So let's see - "any piston engined airplane after the 40's was living on borrowed time" It took 14 years for the last of the recip bombers to retire - boy that's really borrowed time!  

Oh I forgot a few...

AJ-1 Savage - 1948 - 1962

PV-2 Harpoon - served in reserve units till 1955

Martin P5M - 1946 - 1968

Douglas C-124 - 1950 - 1961

Convair C-131 1954 - 1979 for the USN, 1984 for the USAFRES

Grumman SA-16 Albatross - 1947 - 1972

But yea, they were all on borrowed time!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

What about the revamped Mustangs I'm darned if i can remeber the name, but iut was used in COIN ops. 

Mosquitoes were not retired until 1955, 14 years after service entry. Fireflies were used until 1955 as well. Furies until 1955, or later. Then there were the gannets, the S2G trackers, the caribous....and the list goes on. Concede the point, it aint worth it....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

parsifal said:


> What about the revamped Mustangs I'm darned if i can remeber the name, but iut was used in COIN ops.



Are you talking about the turboprop Cavaliers? They looked kinda funny with a big turbine exhaust sticking out of the side, but they were good airplanes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

The P-2 had 2x J34 jet boosters added, but its main powerplants were the 2 R-3350's.

For pure fighters (escort, intercept, sweeps) this was certainly the case, but for bombers it took a little longer to get online. And for transports, patroll ceaft, support/ dedicated attack a/c, and the ability to operate in minimal or improvised airfields the piston engine craft stayed quite a bit longer.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best. 

In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.

With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built *AFTER* the 2nd world war ended.

Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 17, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.



I think this is the problematic statement, you say ANYTHING with a piston engine, not any Fighter or Bomber with piston engines.

At that time fighters (and to a lesser extent bombers) powered by recips were obsolescent. THe bombers less so, but still, all new bomber designs (in development, not ones entering service like the B-50 and B-36) went to jets or, occasionaly, turboprops.

But transports, patroll craft, and dedicated attact/close support a/c (or older fighters adapted to this roll, or redesigned specifically for it like the Corsair was) were still better off with their piston engines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 17, 2008)

And the only stop gap measures the USN had for new designs in the ~1945 timefreme were the Mixed powerd a/c, most notably the Fireball.

Their first pure jet the FH Phantom (prototype XFD Phantom) flew in January of 1945. (3 prototypes being orginally ordered in Summer of 1943)

Due to the end of the war development slowed and it wasn't introduced until 1947. By which time the more advanced F9F Panther and McDonnel's own F2H Banshee (developed from the FH Phantom) were nearly ready for service. Thus the FH saw use by mostly as a conversion trainer and was passed onto the USMC. (retired from USN in '49 and by the USMC in '54)

There were only 62 Phantoms Built.

It could fly quite well on one engine, in fact (due to slow delivery of working prototype engines from Westinghouse) the first test flight was performed with only a single engine installed. (and an underpowered 1,165 lbf thrust at that, compared to 1,600 lbf on production J30's used on the FH-1) Of course this test wasn't from a carrier.


One other interesting thing to note on the Phantom is that it was the first fully independant jet a/c built in the US, using all American designs. (in fact the J30 was the only such engine to fly before the end of the war, and the only design initiated by the NACA's 1941 jet reaserach program to reach fruition)

McDonellXFD-1
EnginesUSA


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.
> 
> In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.
> 
> ...



Why do they not count?

Why are you stuck on this fighter and bomber thing? You cant make the rules of what counts and what does not! 

You are acting like Soren and setting the parameters to suit you. It does not work way.

Explain to me why only fighters and bombers count? Are they the only aircraft in the USAF?

Come on now sys...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.


You're 100% wrong, especially with regards to the transport aircraft - look at the years they served.


syscom3 said:


> In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.


Again wrong, it depended on what type of aircraft you're talking about. Air-to-air fighters, sure, bombers, to an extent (The B-36 was being built until 1954) but you had cargo and attack recips being built in the early 50s


syscom3 said:


> With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built *AFTER* the 2nd world war ended.


None - but now you're altering your original statement...


syscom3 said:


> Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.


Why not???? - again that's not what you originally said. You're exact words -

*"Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent."*


You said *A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G!* Not fighter, bomber, transport, navy or air force - *ANYTHING!*​
You fail to realize that the recip stayed around because....

1. they were reliable
2. there was fuel for them
3. they were still useful
4. there were many of them on hand

No one can argue that for front line fighters and bombers the jet was overtaking the recip, it just didn't happen over night, and as pointed out the USAF didn't become an all-jet bomber force until 1960. Even during Vietnam, with all the F-100s, F-105s, and F-4s buzzin all over the place the USAF had to make use out of Skyraiders and B-26s (Douglas) because they realized their dedicated jet ground attack aircraft could not loiter in a combat zone like an old recip. It wasn't until the A-10 came along when that deficiency was corrected.

It took a good 15 years before the USAF and USN started pushing the last of their recip combat aircraft out to pasture. The navy held on to theirs because of problems with early jet engines (something you pointed out AFTER your initial errored statement). Again Sys - you made a statement and now you're trying to backpedal.....

Oh by the way - we were only talking about the US - I didn't go into other countries who produced recip combat aircraft after WW2 like the Lavochkin La-11, the Hispano HA-1112, The Bristol Brigand, the DeHavilland Hornet, the Blanbun Firebrand and the Hawker Sea Fury, all went into service in 1946 or later AFAIK.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 17, 2008)

FlyboyJ,

I'm going to show my complete ignorance............what is recip? I'm guessing its a piston engine plane, but where does that term come from?


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

A recip is a reciprocating engine also known as a piston engine. Doesn't the S2F still serve in the USN? Is that AC also called Willie Fud?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Yep I think that is them. thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> A recip is a reciprocating engine also known as a piston engine. Doesn't the S2F still serve in the USN? Is that AC also called Willie Fud?


No.

The S-2 officially went out in the 1970s but I seen a squadron hack at Barbers Point during a RIMPAC exercise in 1998. I couldn't get up close to it so I don't know if it was airworthy.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

we are talking the grummans here arent we. RAN had fourteen of them on strength until about 1985 or so. One of my favourite a/c 14 hour endurance. can track just bout any sub. I wonder how it compares to the S3A Viking that replaced it. I cant exactly recall, but i am pretty sure that we could track subs in our trackers that the US Vikings could not, and this was the direct result of the much higher speed of the Viking, brought on by its jet propulsion. this was one instance where jet engines were a hindrance. I just cant be sure on this point, so perhaps someone knows. Promise to get back on topic after this


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> we are talking the grummans here arent we. RAN had fourteen of them on strength until about 1985 or so. One of my favourite a/c 14 hour endurance. can track just bout any sub. I wonder how it compares to the S3A Viking that replaced it. I cant exactly recall, but i am pretty sure that we could track subs in our trackers that the US Vikings could not, and this was the direct result of the much higher speed of the Viking, brought on by its jet propulsion. this was one instance where jet engines were a hindrance. I just cant be sure on this point, so perhaps someone knows. Promise to get back on topic after this



All true - from what I understand the S-3A has some on station problems when tracking subs and that was mainly because of the speeds it had to fly - it was able to slow down but ran into fuel consumption problems. From what I understand this wasn't a major issue per se but was corrected with the S-3B.

And from what I understand, the same ASW package in the S-3 went into the Canadian CP-140 when the first 18 were built.


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

Flyboy, I was thinking the S2F had been modified and was still in use as an AWACS AC and was still in service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, I was thinking the S2F had been modified and was still in use as an AWACS AC and was still in service.


Not with the USN. Some folks hung turboprops on them but the USN gave theirs up, unless you're confusing the S2F with the E-2 Hawkeye.


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

Yep, that is what I was confusing it with. What AC does the USN use as a COD and is it a recip?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Yep, that is what I was confusing it with. What AC does the USN use as a COD and is it a recip?


The current COD is the Greyhound and its a turbo prop.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/misc/c2/bin/c2_02.jpg

The last recip to officialy be part of the Navy's inventory was probably the C-131 or R4Y. I do know one of the reasons why the Skyraider went away was a push to get AvGas off carriers.


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

Makes a lot of sense to get avgas off ASAP. One of the surprising things I learned in Linnekin's book, "80 Knots to Mach 2" was that high test avgas(115/145) was used in jets as well as recips during the Korean War on the carriers. They had to reset the fuel controls when they went from the beach to sea. He said that everything aft of the burner cans got coated with lead residue." About one hour of JP operation would clean the blades off good as new."


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, I was thinking the S2F had been modified and was still in use as an AWACS AC and was still in service.



Renrich

Flyboy is probably correct in his answer, to the extent that there were no s2 AWACs in US service in the 90s. however, I am not sure if either of you know, but there was an s2 AWACs developed. It was the WF-2 and was nicknamed "stoof with a roof", because the s2f was nicknamed "stoof".


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2008)

Found it! The E-1 under the old Navy system was called the WF and acquired the nickname "Willy Fudd." What happens when you get old is the stuff which goes back further seems to be fresher than the new stuff. I still call the Skyraider the AD.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

geez louise

it might be, on current trends, that the top three will all be yank planes.

I notice not a single CW plane on the list. Obviously no-one thinks much of the Mossies Spits or Beaus in the PTO


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2008)

The PTO was pretty much a Yank deal especially in the air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> geez louise
> 
> it might be, on current trends, that the top three will all be yank planes.
> 
> I notice not a single CW plane on the list. Obviously no-one thinks much of the Mossies Spits or Beaus in the PTO


The Spit's performance in the Pacific wasn't that stellar, The Beau served well but again in air-to-air, not even close. The Mossie - I'd guess they would of dry rotted!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Spit's performance in the Pacific wasn't that stellar,



why?

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> why?


Tactics.....


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Tactics.....



Yep 100% agree........and perhaps a little ego by the RAF. They probably thought they would send in the beloved Spitfires to kick butt.....instead their Spitfires got kicked.

But I agree it had more to do with tactics then the machines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2008)

And the standard Spitfire lacked the range to be really useful in the PTO. WIth the seafire this was not as bad of a problem though.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 18, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the standard Spitfire lacked the range to be really useful in the PTO. WIth the seafire this was not as bad of a problem though.




Carrier aircraft with a short range are generally at a disadvantage.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2008)

I said AS bad a problem, it was certainly still a disadvantage. (But the Seafire had other problems as well, personally I think the Sea Hurricane was a better choice despite the lower performance, untill they had better fighters like the Corsair anyway)

The F4F was at a range disadvantage as well, albeit not as much. (and the 2x 50 gal drop tanks had to be hand pumped if fitted)

The F2A-2/3 had excelent range (1,500+ mi clean, drop tanks were never fitted), in fact the F2A-2 had the longest range of any fighter when it first entered service, only surpassed by the A6M shortly after. (and only then with a drop tank) But let's not get into this discussion here. (about the F2A) It's been/being done in other threads. (let's just say the development of the design and company its self was badly mismanaged, the best all around vaiant probably being the F2A-2)


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 18, 2008)

The only fault i see with comparing the much Vaunted Japanese Shiden Kai, with other examples of the best fighter, is the others fought, while this new plane was designed...yes in performance, etc, it was great, but so was other countries planes developed at the very end of hostilities...not trying to ink, or erk fans of this plane, but would maybe be like saying the best plane in European theatre was say...Gloster meteor with 4 20mmcannons, 16, 60pound 3" rockets, etc...but a spec or limited duel with an adversary is hard to judge...The ShidenKai, may have battled with Allied aircraft...How did it do, or kill ratio??? likewise with the Meteor???

the US of A had the lockhead P-80 flying in january of '45, can we count this plane as to one of the best in Europe, or Pacific??

bf109 Emil


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> the US of A had the lockhead P-80 flying in january of '45, can we count this plane as to one of the best in Europe, or Pacific?


Neither...

The P-80 in 1945 was still a very volatile aircraft - In actuality it wasn't combat ready till the end of 1945.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 18, 2008)

Today is the 65th anniversary of the Yamamoto shoot down mission (see my thread for the details).

P38's were chosen for the mission over Corsairs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> P38's were chosen for the mission over Corsairs.



I wonder why?????


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2008)

The Meteor was far from a fully combat capable aircraft at the end of the war as well. The Meteor III wasn't much faster than the Mk.I (~450 mph max, opposed to ~420 mph of the Mk.I at ~10,000-15,000 ft) untill long chord nacelles were fitted, which allowd ~495 mph at altitude with Welland engines and ~520 mph with Derwent I's. These also reduced compressability problems quit a bit. (crit Mach ~.83, but buffeting and control problems still experienced down to ~.78 mach due to aiflow separation over the tail, mach limit same as Mk.IV at .8 mach; this was improved with the addition of a new tail on the F-8 )

Due to structural issues with the wing (a failure was experienced in testing high speed maneuvers) the ailerons were wired heavy on the F.III to prevent the wings from being overstressed which allowed it to be cleard for aerobatics. It aso resulted in a poor roll rate and was tiring for the pilot to operate. (clipping the wings would have helped as well for both stress and roll rate, but this wasn't implemented until the Mk.IV, along with a strengthened airframe)

It was also noth that great for range without the long nacelles due to the high drag of the short nacelles. The F.III could acheive a max range of ~1,300 mi, but only with a conformal belly tank bolted on (not droppable) which would reduce performance somewhat.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I wonder why?????



Best pilots for the job no doubt. Whenever you need something done, call in the AAF.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Best pilots for the job no doubt. Whenever you need something done, call in the AAF.



I seriously question that air force boys would be better than the marine flyers in the theatre. Wasnt Pappy Boyington a Corsair joc in the solomons at this time???

Maybe the P-38s were just at the right place at the right time, maybe they had a better performance arc at the point of interception, but pilot quality???? seems very unlikely to me


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Best pilots for the job no doubt. Whenever you need something done, call in the AAF.






parsifal said:


> I seriously question that air force boys would be better than the marine flyers in the theatre. Wasnt Pappy Boyington a Corsair joc in the solomons at this time???
> 
> Maybe the P-38s were just at the right place at the right time, maybe they had a better performance arc at the point of interception, but pilot quality???? seems very unlikely to me


In actuality the P-38 was deemed reliable and it also had the range to carry out this "aerial assassination."


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I seriously question that air force boys would be better than the marine flyers in the theatre. Wasnt Pappy Boyington a Corsair joc in the solomons at this time???



The Corsair pilots were at the officers club during the mission.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2008)

Either at the O Club or on the beach with the nurses. Shows good judgment.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2008)

> In actuality the P-38 was deemed reliable and it also had the range to carry out this "aerial assassination."



The bullets from the P38 had parts of an arrest warrant glued to them.

They were only delivering them.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2008)

Good answer...Ill take it....


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The bullets from the P38 had parts of an arrest warrant glued to them.
> 
> They were only delivering them.



The interception of Yamato was as task that transcends American history and delves into mythology.

David vs Goliath
Battle of Thermopile
Stalingrad

The evisceration of the architect of Pearl Harboir


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Spit's performance in the Pacific wasn't that stellar,



I have to pretty much agree with Joe here, the spit wasn't really suited to combat in the PTO, however it did serve a purpose especially in point defence of Allied air bases ie Darwin, Kiriwina, Morotai etc freeing up longer ranging a/c to undertake offensive operations. Regarding Spits V Zero's over Darwin, I'm holding my judgement until more research has been undertaken, especially regarding Japanese losses.




FLYBOYJ said:


> The Beau served well but again in air-to-air, not even close.



Agreed, an excellent aircraft that served with distinction in the Pacific not in dogfighting but in the air to ground/maritime strike role. However RAAF Beau's did have great success in air to air combat against the Japanese especially over Taberfane, Timor etc however this was mainly against Pete's, Rufes, Nicks and other twin engined bombers.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mossie - I'd guess they would of dry rotted!



Pretty much. Though an excellent a/c it was introduced too late in the Pacific to make much difference in that theatre. Infact I'm unaware of any aerial victories scored by mossies in the Pacific (not talking CBI here).

As for the best fighter, I like most here, believe it's between the P38, F4U and F6F and seeins as I can't decide which one, I'm no real help to this discussion!!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 20, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> The interception of Yamato was as task that transcends American history and delves into mythology.



Sycom was talking about admiral Isoroku Yamamoto not the sinking of the Yamato.http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/65th-anniversary-yamamoto-shootdown-mission-12869.html


----------



## road_apple1861 (Apr 22, 2008)

Im going to have to go with the F6F hellcat, was a good match with the zero and gave a relief from the F4F which was becoming really outdated when the Hellcat pounced onto the pacific.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 22, 2008)

road_apple1861 said:


> Im going to have to go with the F6F hellcat, was a good match with the zero and gave a relief from the F4F which was becoming really outdated when the Hellcat pounced onto the pacific.



But the Hellcat didnt go up with as many top notch IJN and IJA pilots like the P38 and F4U pilots had to go against.

And even then, the F6F was inferior to either of those two planes in nearly every single catagory.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Sycom was talking about admiral Isoroku Yamamoto not the sinking of the Yamato.http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/65th-anniversary-yamamoto-shootdown-mission-12869.html



So was I... I was referring to Yamamoto... temporary confusion on my part.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 22, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> But the Hellcat didnt go up with as many top notch IJN and IJA pilots like the P38 and F4U pilots had to go against.



What do you base that on?



.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 22, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> What do you base that on?



New Guinie and the Solomons.

The bulk of the Hellcat kills in 1944 were against woefully trained and prepared Japanese aircrews in the Marianas and PI.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 22, 2008)

Plus the P-38 (and F4U to lesser extent) was there earlier than the Hellcat at a time when many of the toughest and best (along with more average but still well trained and experienced) Japanese pilots were still there.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

There are a number of small scale combats involving the hellcat and ace/well trained Japanese pilots. They are the exception rather than the rule, but thy do provide a clue that the Hellcat was not so overwhelmingly superior to the Japanese counterparts as one might assume. The best "lage scale" example I can think of is the Allied counterattack at Phil Sea (6/44). With no mor than 35 fighters remaining, but apparently these being 1942 veterans, the loss rates in the American strikes whilst over the japanese carriers were certainly higher than that. Trouble is, i dont have figures on the numbers of Hellcats shot down in that part of the battle. Total US losses, including those ditched near the US Fleet,amounted to 135 aircraft


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 22, 2008)

I go with th North American P-38 Lightning


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> I go with th North American P-38 Lightning



Not the Lockheed P-51?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not the Lockheed P-51?



That does have a nice ring to it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> I go with th North American P-38 Lightning



The P-38 was not built by North American. It was built by Lockheed.

The P-51 was built by North American, hense why Flyboy is having a bit of fun with you in his last post...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

We could have the Mitsubishi Warhawk, or the Brewster A5M


----------



## Mitya (Jun 25, 2008)

Vote F6F. Because this is universal plane.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 25, 2008)

Sorry about that, don't need to mark that much
I like aviation, but i still have much to learn
i'll try to prevent that kind of mistakes


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

Just joking, was all in fun.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> Sorry about that, don't need to mark that much
> I like aviation, but i still have much to learn
> i'll try to prevent that kind of mistakes



You have to have some thick skin to survive here.

8)


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 26, 2008)

thanks for the advice syscom
i'll keep alert


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

i vote for P-40, the fighter of fliyng tigers


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i vote for P-40, the fighter of fliyng tigers



Why is it the best?

BTW, nice pic of the P47's belonging to the Brazilian AF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> Sorry about that, don't need to mark that much
> I like aviation, but i still have much to learn
> i'll try to prevent that kind of mistakes



You do not need to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes. This place is a place to learn, and as long as you are learning you do not need to apologize.


----------



## <simon> (Jun 27, 2008)

Hang on.... No Bearcat??
I thought the Bearcat would be a worthy contender
-Carrier operable
-Climbs like a bitch (best piston in WW2 in fact!)
-Carries damn good armament
-Friggin' manouverable!

Otherwise, i'd be leaning towards the Corsair.
How many other single piston aircraft have been known to fly sorties carrying TWO 2,000 pound bombs?? 
Plus the Corsairs look real nice!


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2008)

Bearcat did not fight in WW2


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jun 27, 2008)

If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the _most important_ Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the _most important_ Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.



The P51 didnt enter combat in the PTO untill well into late 1944 when the Japanese AF's were a spent force.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 27, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P51 didnt enter combat in the PTO untill well into late 1944 when the Japanese AF's were a spent force.



The Packard-Merlin Version - but Allison P-51A was in Indo China in late summer 1943, and first B's were in ops in Feb 1944 

Having said that the Mustang was not a factor in PTO to same level as the P-38 or F4U or F6F


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The Packard-Merlin Version - but Allison P-51A was in Indo China in late summer 1943, and first B's were in ops in Feb 1944
> 
> Having said that the Mustang was not a factor in PTO to same level as the P-38 or F4U or F6F



Comparing the Allison P51's to the Merlin P51's is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different airplanes.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 27, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Comparing the Allison P51's to the Merlin P51's is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different airplanes.



"P51 didn't enter combat until late 1944" is what I was replying to Syscom..did I misread the above statement?

The early Allison engined a/c was designated "P51" and it did get to CBI in Sept 1943 and did fly against JAF in Burma. The B model reached China in Feb, ops in spring, 1944 and the D got there in November?

I, in fact, distingusihed the difference between A and B as well the times they entered combat ops in my comments.

If we want to get technical, the P-51A had a lot more in common with the B/C/D than the H... which REALLY was a different airplane in reality... having the same engine but nothing else airframe wise from its predecessors? Before taking me to task, on that statement I do think it had like 13 parts in common with the D..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 27, 2008)

And at medium altitudes (up to ~17,000 ft for speed, climb got better for the P-51B at ~8,000 ft) performance of the P-51A was similar to the P-51B (somewhat better in some respects at low alt, due to lighter weight and roughly equal engine performance up to ~10,500 ft). (note the P-51A had a defferent engine than the A-36 or Mustang I/IA, with a higher supercharger ratio with a significantly higher critical altitude -though a lower max manifold limit of 57" Hg producing 1,480 hp at 10,400 ft)

Particularly useful in the PTO where much combat took place at medium to low altitudes, and most japanese a/c had poor high alt performance.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg


----------



## JoeB (Jun 27, 2008)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the _most important_ Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.


I agree, 'best' always turns into comparisons of 1945 planes, either whole new ones or advanced models of older ones, that hardly affected the war. And planes are included or not because they barely managed to fly a few combat missions or just missed doing so. Its' not too meaningful IMO.

For most important, it's certainly the Zero for the Japanese. For the Allies I'd say F6F, since carrier fighter superiority was a key element of the US victory. Carrier superiority was key to the drive across the Central Pacific, MacArthur's drive would have dead ended in the Philippines. You can't get to Okinawa or Japan itself under landbased fighter cover without an American land campaign in China. It's not the P-38's fault, landbased fighters were just less important in the Pacific. And as in 1st paragraph, the F4U-4 was a superior a/c to the F6F-5 but even the F4U-1 wasn't widely used on carriers until 1945. And since the Japanese lost, I'd say F6F was the most important fighter in the Pacific overall.

Re: P-51A, 10th AF P-51A's escorting B-24's into Burma from India in a series of raids in late November 1943, claimed a low ratio of Japanese fighters compared to their own losses, and actually apparently downed fewer of the defending JAAF Type 1 ('Oscar') and Type 2 2-seaters ('Nicks') encountered than P-51's lost. The raids were discontinued. The P-51B/C however made a serious impression on the JAAF in China in 1944. They first sent the Type 4 ('Frank') into combat there in part to try to counter the P-51.

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Land based fighters were extremely important.

The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.

In the meantime, the Corsairs and P38's in the SW Pacific were in a daily battle with the IJA/IJN.

You can say that the Hellcat is what made the carriers invincable. But it was the Lightning and Corsair that destroyed the remaining "cream of the crop" Japanese pilots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2008)

<simon> said:


> Hang on.... No Bearcat??
> I thought the Bearcat would be a worthy contender
> -Carrier operable
> -Climbs like a bitch (best piston in WW2 in fact!)
> ...



Did the Bearcat fight in WW2?

No...


----------



## JoeB (Jun 28, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Land based fighters were extremely important.
> 
> The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.
> 
> ...


Not unimportant, but less important. The South and Southwest Pacific campaigns were a series of advances that led to the re-conquest of Philippines. Beyond that, landbased fighter supported landings couldn't get to Japan without seizing territory in mainland China (with US forces, a huge undertaking consciously avoided). Carrier superiority was necessary to finish things off, (eg. Mariana's B-29 bases, Okinawa, invasion of Japan itself: carriers), basic geo-strategic fact of the war.

Less capable landbased fighters could still have worn down the Japanese in the Solomons and NG campaigns just at higher cost, but excellent fighters were a more critical commodity for the limited deck space of carriers.

Also the scale of F4U combat was considerably smaller than F6F. F4U sdns saw little action between early 1944 (when the Rabaul campaign ended) and early 1945 (when assigned to carriers in part because underutilized), the critical phase of the war, a year of pretty constant large scale F6F ops downing very large numbers of carrier and landbased Japanese a/c. F6F's also did some fighting from land bases in the Solomons, and F4U's only entered service there in early '43 a few months before carrier operations started up again in earnest in summer, and flew alongside F4F's, P-40's (and P-38's) in Solomons in that period: credit for gradually attriting the Japanese air arms pre-1944 is shared among a number of types. F4U perhaps better plane than the F6F, but no way as important in the Pacific War, as it played out.

In scale of operation it's a little closer between P-38 and F6F but same issue, F6F campaigns were the ones which absolutely had to happen and where it was more important for the fighters to be superior plane for plane, whereas it can be debated whether the P-38's main campaign, leapfrogging up the New Guinea and eastern DEI to the Philippines, was even necessary to winning the war. However within that campaign the long range of the P-38 was a critical advantage: it set the distance by which each amphibious operation could advance from the previous under landbased air cover.

Looking at the big picture level of the war, I can't see a non-carrier fighter being named most important in the Pacific War. If another category was introduced for most important landbased fighter, then it would be P-38, not the F4U.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2008)

Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills, about 400 more than the P38. One could make the case that a study of Hellcat and Corsair kills proves the superiority of the Corsair because the Corsair was engaged in the Solomons when the skill and training level of the IJN pilots was still relatively high and because the Corsair was shooting down fighters rather than the easier to vanquish bombers. Actually, comparing operational losses of the two AC somewhat belies the reputation of the Corsair as an "ensign eliminator."


----------



## JoeB (Jun 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills,


Again I'm not talking 'superior' I'm talking important. A lot of F4U sorties were 
'hold down' operations against bypassed garrisons in 1944 with little or no air opposition, that's why the sortie and bomb numbers are high but the kill claim numbers much lower. But 1944 is when Japanese naval and air power was really smashed, and the F6F had more to do with that than any other fighter. It's the point at which carrier groups starting taking on large land based air contingents and defeating them, opening the path to directly attacking Japan. Marine F4U sdns only deployed on carriers from January 1945, and the first USN sdn (beside F4U-2 night fighters) that February. The fast carrier groups remained mainly F6F through the end of the war. So the F4U might have been the plane in that critical role, but it wasn't.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2008)

Joe, I see your points. Perhaps when judging the most important Pacific fighter, we should consider the Wildcat. It was the fighter which was there in the beginning. It was there at Coral Sea, when the IJN had it's back broken at Midway and in the Solomons until spring of 1943. One could almost say that the Hellcats and Corsairs just did the mopping up.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2008)

I agree the distinction must (or should) be made regarding 'Best' versus 'Most Important'

Era's are also interesting.. for example the F4F did a good job against the Zero through the Battle of Santa Cruz, but the F6F dominated Pacific Fleet Ops from late 1943 to the end of the war. If you have a debate about 1941-1942 the 'best' and 'most important' have to consider the Zero. For 1943 it becomes more murky as the F4F was still in prime service, holding it's own but not dominating the Zero but the Corsair and Lightning were land bound while the USN was systematically enabling 'toe holds for them' in the SW Pacific. But clearly the F4F could not approach any of the above from a pure perfromance POV.

I also agree with JoeB how important Carrier Ops were throughout the war in projecting 'tactical and strategic footprint.

From a raw performance (best) to most important, one ETO comparison could be Ta 152 to Mustang. From my personal perspective the Ki 84, P-38J and F4U-4 were all superior to the F6F - but none as 'important' to PTO airpower as the F6F.

I still view the F6F and P-51 as the most important US fighters in their respective theatres from late 1943 to EOW.


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2008)

Bill, those are all good points and for the time mentioned, I agree.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2008)

But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944. 

Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.

And it was the USMC and AAF units that so depleted the IJN and IJA, that the USN was able to steamroller through the Marshall islands.

The F4F and P40 were important aircraft, but far being the best.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 2, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944.
> 
> Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.
> 
> ...



So, in your opinion carriers and carrier air were insignificant until 1944? Interesting thought.

That would be dismissing the contribution Halsey/USN carrier air made to the entire Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands campaigns, to neutralize Rabaul and Truk, suppress Japanese reinforcements and actually provide the bases for the P-38s and F4U's (and B-24/25/17/29's).

That would be dismissing the fact that Carrier Air brought the F4U's to location and positioned the USMC Air from Guadalcanal to Vella Lavella in 1942-1943.

That would be dismissing the contributions to Coral Sea, Bismark Sea and Midway air battles.

In short, carrier operations were a lot more that air battles - and they engaged in plenty of those. The purpose of Fighter Aviation was air superiority and the USN achieved that at Midway from a Fleet Operations POV, and that enabled the US to cohesively island hop, bypass strongholds, put up land based ops, supply them, and take the next series via Carrier Task Force.

No contribution from USAAF through 1944 was possible w/o carrier airpower, except for places like Darwin in Australia - everything from New Guinea to Iwo required carrier air to enable the movement and supply of everything the USAAF required to fight.

I'm probably as big a USAAF bigot as there is but even I have a hard time 'dismissing' Brown Shoe contributions in 1942 and 1943.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2008)

I am speaking of the time period between the end of Guadalcanal and the beginning of the invasion of the Gilberts.

The carriers did not engage in any systematic day to day operations untill late 1943. 

Land based fighters are what wiped out the best of the IJN, and in this case, it was the P38 and F4U. If you have a case for the F4F as being the ebst, lets hear it.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 2, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I am speaking of the time period between the end of Guadalcanal and the beginning of the invasion of the Gilberts.
> 
> The carriers did not engage in any systematic day to day operations untill late 1943.
> 
> Land based fighters are what wiped out the best of the IJN, and in this case, it was the P38 and F4U. If you have a case for the F4F as being the ebst, lets hear it.




Syscom - why are you hung up on 'systematic' operations? So what? and what does that mean to you? How many IJN fighters did the P-38 or F4U shoot down over Rabaul or Gilberts or Truk or Santa Cruz or Coral Sea or Midway? Or more importantly, Guadalcanal. 

Where do you want to make a case that the F4F wasn't the most important sea based and land based fighter in 1942?

Nobody is arguing that land based airpower was a major contributor to the decline of IJN - but the USN was the point of the spear except for Darwin and Port Moresby in 1942... and the last time I checked the USMC was still part of USN.

If you have read any of my posts you might recall that I am ambivalent about F4U vs P-38 as 'best', and lean toward the F4U. Why do you think I regard the F4F as even a consideration?

I am glad the F4F was in-theatre but I don't rank them as a candidate for either Best or Most Important...at least not after mid 1943, nor do I rank the F4U or P-38 or P-40 in the category of Most Important in 1942 in the ultimate defeat of the IJN airpower.

For that period the F4F and P-40 are the only real US candidates and the F4F was more important at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Rabaul, Truk and Gilbert Islands than the P-38 and F4U... the more I think about it, the P-40 was probably more important through early 1943 out of Port Moresby than the P-38...at least through mid to late 1943.

IIRC the 475th, 8th, 18th, 35th and the 49th were the top USAAF PTO groups. 

The 49th wasn't fully converted from P-40's until mid 1944. The 475th wasn't in combat w/38 until May 1943 and not out of New Guinea Until Oct, 1944 when it moved to to Phillipines. 

The 8th didn't convert to P-38s until June 1943. the 18th didn't convert to P-38s (from P-40's) until after they moved from Guadalcanal in mid 1943, and the 35th had only one squadron of 38's in nov 1942 (two P-40) but all three converted to P-47s in Nov 1943, then 51s in late 1944.

The IJN foes based in New Guinea were important at both Lae and Salamaua (?) and defending against Rabaul strikes, in the New Guinea campaigns but the P-38 was far less a factor than the P-40 until July/Sept 1943 timeframe.

When do you stipulate the IJN airpower was defeated? Before or after mid 1943?

The primary source for TO&E is Olynyk's Stars and Bars

So how important was P-38 to destruction of IJN in 1942-1943? Close to zero relative to P-40 until mid to late 1943 and early 1944.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

Good posts Bill. 

But when talking about raw performance lets not forget the Me-262A-1a, which left everything else in the dust in that department. Not letting it operate as an airsuperiority fighter from the beginning as intended was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes in the war. Its success rate when operated as intended was excellent, achieving a kill/loss ratio of ~10/1 in the air if not more.

Still at that point it couldn't have won the war for Germany, they were simply too few to late, but it could've drawn out the war to a point where the Allied invasion progess would've stalled completely and negotiations were a possibility. However for there to be any chance of repulsing the Western Allies back out of mainland Europe the Germans would've needed not only the Me262 in the fighter role from the start of their deployment, but they'd need the Jumo 004D engine, as that would allow them to hunt down the Allied bombers over British soil. Now fuel would've always been a problem, but less so had the Allies been robbed of their ability to strike the German fuel industry from early 44 and onwards.

PS: Sorry for the OT stuff, back on topic;

IMO the best fighters in the PTO were the F4U Corsair and Ki-84 Hayate. Too bad for the Japanese that nearly only rookies were flying the Ki-84's. Still the Ki-84 did prove the most successful Japanese fighter in the late war years, along with the N1K2-J.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2008)

I think you over estimate what the 262 could do Soren there is not a hope in hell that the allies would have negotiated on the basses of heavy air losses . Can,t stop troops with a fighter even if it is the 262 the logistics of Germany had been destroyed to all intense and purposes by the time the 262 was about.
You needed ground, sea and air power dominance to win WW2 and Germany had lost all three, even if the 262 had regained the air upper hand it would have not been enough to push the allies into negotiating terms.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Good posts Bill.
> 
> But when talking about raw performance lets not forget the Me-262A-1a, which left everything else in the dust in that department. Not letting it operate as an airsuperiority fighter from the beginning as intended was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes in the war. Its success rate when operated as intended was excellent, achieving a kill/loss ratio of ~10/1 in the air if not more.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree that also. Nobody wanted to dogfight a Ki 84 in the hands of a good pilot.. The reason I favor the F4U over the 38 is simply it was the best Air/land air superiority fighter of the war and that was a requisite in the PTO... 
and the same applies when compared to the Ki 84 and the Shiden.

If someone gives me just one choice to fight the entire war as escort fighter, carrier fighter, night fighter, air superiority - if it is only one choice for all theatres and opponents, then for me the F4U-1 to start and F4U-5 to finish.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

trackend said:


> I think you over estimate what the 262 could do Soren there is not a hope in hell that the allies would have negotiated on the basses of heavy air losses . Can,t stop troops with a fighter even if it is the 262 the logistics of Germany had been destroyed to all intense and purposes by the time the 262 was about.
> You needed ground, sea and air power dominance to win WW2 and Germany had lost all three, even if the 262 had regained the air upper hand it would have not been enough to push the allies into negotiating terms.



I disagree trackend, the Allied bomber offensive would've been halted which would've helped the German ground forces immensly. 

You're seriously downplaying the effect Allied airforces had on the German war effort on the ground. The Germans were pretty much forced to move by night or risk getting shot up by marauding allied fighter bombers.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

Bill,

I rate the FW-190 F4U Corsair as equals, with the late 190's holding a slight advantage in performance but the Corsair being carrier capable.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I rate the FW-190 F4U Corsair as equals, with the late 190's holding a slight advantage in performance but the Corsair being carrier capable.



I really don't disagree but would point out a.) that the Fw 190 (any series) have to add the extra 600 pounds for carrier qual, or add 100+ plus gallons of fuel to be competitive on range.. 

imagine the F4U as USAAF 'P-42' early in the war with existing racks for external fuel early in 1943 (and 600 pounds+ lighter for same mission, instead of the P-47 - but capable of getting to middle Germany early 1943 and all the way by late 1943 with combined external and internal fuel? The P-51 may never have been near as important as it was.

It might have forced an earlier intro of the Me 262 but at the same time probably would have cut deeper into pilot staff of LW even earlier... who knows? - all great airplanes. What we do know is what 'coulda happened' did happen - the rest is speculation.

On another note, I have sorted out Gene's model and have had a couple of exchanges on how to treat Thp variations with altitude and now debating whether to use the same factor for EAS (sqrt(RHOalt/RHOsl) versus an obscure P&W formula from an old design handbook from long ago and far way

I posed on Thp factor of ((RHOalt/RHOsl-.1)/.9) to be applied to Bhp for altitudes under consideration. 

EAS = TAS*Sqrt(RHOalt/RHOsl) which will get us 'corrected' values for q.

There is enough difference in the two approaches as to make the Thp NOT linear with EAS - no big deal at SL - very significant at 25,000 feet as far as predicted 'actual values' - 

He does have me converted to EAS as the baseline for calcs.

I have gone into The Performance Charts from Flight Tests on the P-51B-15 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7. The reason I am looking at this one is a.) flight test values for 44-1 fuel, Hp table, Speed Tables vs Altitude for both 67 and 75" boost. I propse that the results for the May 1944 test be used and discuss the weight conditions later.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2008)

The early model F4U's didnt have the high altitude performance that the P38 and P51 had. So forget about effective high altitude bomber escorting.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 6, 2008)

The contemporary Fw 190's had even worse high altitude performance than the F4U... And I think performance would have been sufficient for escort. (particularly for B-24's)

And the early P-38's had their own problems at alt. (intercooler, cockpit heating, turbocharger, compressibility; the latter two worse in the colder conditions of the ETO)

A related discussion: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the early P-38's had their own problems at alt. (intercooler, cockpit heating, turbocharger, compressibility; the latter two worse in the colder conditions of the ETO)



The P38's in the MTO didnt have the problems. And enough of them in the 8th worked to provide escorts.

And then again, the P38 was a magnitude better than the F4U when it came to a photo recon plane.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's in the MTO didnt have the problems. And enough of them in the 8th worked to provide escorts.
> 
> And then again, the P38 was a magnitude better than the F4U when it came to a photo recon plane.



Very true


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The early model F4U's didnt have the high altitude performance that the P38 and P51 had. So forget about effective high altitude bomber escorting.



F4U-1 was just fine at 20K and by mid 1943 it was just fine at 25-30K so it had all it needed to compete with 109s and 190s at either altitude in all performance dimensions, including specifically Dive. 

IIRC the F4I-1 tests in Fighter config had the airplane at ~ 430mph at 24K and that seems 'competitive' to both the Merlin 51 and the P-38L but a year earlier. 

In my opinion, I agree it was not as good as either the 51 or the 38 above 20,000 feet (after 38 got dive flap/brake and 51 was Merlined') but also in my opinion it was better than both the 109G2-G5 and Fw 190A3-A5 (and P-38F and P-51A) at 20-25,000 feet in early 1943.

The 38 was neutered as 'high altitude' escort until it got dive brake/flap simply because it couldn't chase anybody in a dive - and as KK mentioned the ETO winters were hard on the Pre P-38J/L Allison/Intercoolers. 

It had by far the lowest air to air ratio in the ETO for those reasons. When the late J and L emerged it was a great fighter - but not until then


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2008)

Bill,

I think the F4U-1 would've struggled abit against the Bf-109G-2 6 in dogfighting as both could outturn outclimb the Corsair. The FW-190A was also faster at low to medium alt, and climbed faster as-well, and dogfighting capability was similar. What the Allies needed was a fighter which did esp. well at high alt and was fast, the P-51 fitted that bill.

But you proposed that it [F4U] replaced the P-47 P-38, which I think would've helped I agree.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> But you proposed that it [F4U] replaced the P-47 P-38, which I think would've helped I agree.




The F4U never had the extreme range capabilities that the P38 had. And in the Pacific, range was everything.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2008)

I was talking in the ETO syscom3, not the PTO, the P-38 did well enough in that theatre.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Hellcat for me. Good gun platform, large production, excellent protection for the pilot, and it brought you home after damage more often than not.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2008)

Not a Corsair fan are we Bandit??


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Well, as I have said in another thread 

"...War is...about being in the right place at the right time.."

Now on paper AND in flight the corsair (apart from the view over the nose) was better than the Hellcat, with the exception of gun platform steadiness. BUT numbers, man, numbers! The Hellcat design worked so well right off the bat that large numbers zoomed out of the factories without a hitch..whereas the corsair had a lot of production hiccups before some sort of steady output could be achieved. 

Also, let's not forget ease of learning and carrier deck landing safety. When you add that into the equation package, the Corsair loses by a slight margin.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2008)

And the air to ground capability of the Corsair vs the Hellcats makes the Hellcat lose by a slight margin...


----------



## Amsel (Dec 6, 2008)

Armament should give the Corsair a slight lead.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 8, 2008)

I don't remember where I read this, so it could be bogus, but the F4U-4 could take off with 6 000lbs (from land only).


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 8, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Hellcat for me. Good gun platform, large production, excellent protection for the pilot, and it brought you home after damage more often than not.



P38 ..... extremely tough airframe, supurb climb rate, longest ranged fighter of WW2, excellent armorment, high payload, dual engines brought the plane home when the alternative was ditching in the sea or over the jungle, photo recon version was second to none ...

Now what were you saying about the Hellcat?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 8, 2008)

Yes, but could the P-38 take off from, and land on, a carrier?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2008)

Ummmmmmm, nope....


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 8, 2008)

But could a Corsair be used as a torpedo bomber?

Ummmmm ........ nope!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 9, 2008)

Cost of p-38 versus hellcat? Aaaand I won't even emphasize the fact that if any Pacific commander had chosen the p-38 to the exclusion of the Hellcat, he would have been embroiled in endless squabbles about number allocations with the generals of the ETO...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 9, 2008)

Why would the Corsair be any worse a torpedo bomber than the P-38? (Hell the Fw 190 could do it, and the Corsair could carry a pair of Tiny Tim's)

Did the P-38 even use torpedoes operationlly? (I know it was tested)

And could the P-38 be used as a dive bomber? (the Corsair was almost as accurate as the Dauntless in tests)


----------



## timshatz (Dec 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Why would the Corsair be any worse a torpedo bomber than the P-38?



Probably, it could carry the bomb load. But the pullout would be dicey.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 9, 2008)

Interesting ideas.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2008)

The P38 was also used with some success as a light bomber in the "droop snoot" configuration.

It also was a far safer plane to operate due to its tricycle landing gear.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 9, 2008)

F6F. Maybe not as impressive performance-wise as the F4U, but overall more practical and safer as a carrier fighter.


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

Air to air kills in pacific-P38=1700. Corsair=2155. Hellcat=5257. BB, if you can get your hands on 
"80 Knots to Mach 2" by Linnekin, read his evaluation of Corsair and Hellcat. In short Corsair was much better performer and be cause of better control modulation was superior in gunnery runs. The Corsair could obviously have been a VT but there was no need for it because of Avenger.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 9, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Cost of p-38 versus hellcat? Aaaand I won't even emphasize the fact that if any Pacific commander had chosen the p-38 to the exclusion of the Hellcat, he would have been embroiled in endless squabbles about number allocations with the generals of the ETO...



IMO, the generals in the ETO would've been quite happy letting the Pacific generals have all of the P-38's they want; the P-38 was never very popular in the ETO anyway (for a variety of reasons), whereas it did quite well in the PTO. I'm sure the ETO generals would probably have even agreed to shipping all of their P-38's to the PTO in exchange for a like number of P-47's P-51's.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

Renrich, Sod stitch, (I really must look up that thread to find out what those names mean!) thanks for the info. SS, I'll put that book on my "to find and buy" list.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

I would rank the most impactful planes in the PTO as follows:

1) F6F Hellcat. It's massive kill count and fantastic kill ratio speak for themselves. While it is true that the Wildcat fought against tougher opposition, it is also true that once unleashed and serving side by side with Wildcats, the Hellcat totally outperformed it in actual battles. 

2) P38J/L Lightning. The top 2 US aces in history flew this bird. Coincidence? Probably not. As has been pointed out many times, for sheer versatility the P38 is probably unbeatable. And yes, there was a carrier based P38 variant built, called the "Model 300". The USN was not interested because they felt it was too large(taking up too much deck space), and they didn't like water cooled engines.

3) F4U Corsair. I personally like the F4U-1C the best (4x 20mm guns).

All three of them are legends though. And rightfully so IMO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> And yes, there was a carrier based P38 variant built, called the "Model 300". The USN was not interested because they felt it was too large(taking up too much deck space), and they didn't like water cooled engines.


You sure about that? The Lockheed "Model 300" was the C-141.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Yes, i am sure of that. Actually....haha.....

Lockheed proposed a carrier-based *"Model 822"* version of the Lightning for the US Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy wasn't interested, since the brass regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations and didn't like liquid-cooled engines anyway, and the Model 822 never went beyond the paper stage. However, the Navy did operate four land-based F-5Bs in North Africa, with these aircraft inherited from the USAAF and redesignated "FO-1".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> The Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> 
> Yes, i am sure of that. Actually....haha.....
> 
> Lockheed proposed a carrier-based *"Model 822"* version of the Lightning for the US Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy wasn't interested, since the brass regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations and didn't like liquid-cooled engines anyway, and the Model 822 never went beyond the paper stage. However, the Navy did operate four land-based F-5Bs in North Africa, with these aircraft inherited from the USAAF and redesignated "FO-1".



errr - you said *model 300 *NOT *822*



Valo300 said:


> *there was a carrier based P38 variant built, called the "Model 300"*



*"The Lockheed Model 300 C-141 StarLifter is a series of American long-range logistics transport aircraft in service since 1965."*

Lockheed C-141

hahahahahaha..........


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

No kidding, what do you think the "haha" was about? Why do you think i highlighted the model 822 in bold?

Here, for you, since you are obviously not adept at catching self depriciating humor...
*
I was wrong about the model number.*

Of course the particular model number is *totally irrelevant* to the point i was making- that there was a carrier capable P38 variant/prototype built. Is there any other minutia in my post(s) you'd like to comment on?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> since you are obviously not adept at catching self depriciating humor





Valo300 said:


> Is there any other minutia in my post(s) you'd like to comment on?




*Yea, how about I boot your @ss off this forum?*

You're a noobe here - learn the ropes and don't be a d!ck or else your stay will be very short. At this point you're on thin ice. I suggest just going about your way and not make any more ignorant comments to me or any one else on this forum - *I hope I've made myself abundantly clear!!!!*


----------



## Man O War (Feb 10, 2009)

Personal favorite: FM2-While not many "aces" (5) flew it, they had a very respectable kill/loss ratio. The FM2's more powerful engine, lighter weight, larger tail control surfaces and increase in performance (climb, speed and turning ability) caught many Japanese pilots by surprise. There is even a case where a FM2 shot down a Zero while it was shooting up a Corsair during that aircrafts introduction to the war. Had the FM2 been introduced sooner, I believe it would have produced a considerable number of aces in the Pacific.

While outnumbered, slower, less manueverable than its antongonists, the whole Wildcat series seemed to get the job done. It's ability to take considerable damage and bring it's pilot home, operate in some of the worst conditions imaginable, operate from small carrier decks and dish out a good amount of damage, allowed the creation of excellent combat pilots and several aces who would go on to the the Corsair or Hellcat.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2009)

Actually MW, the FM2 just got back to the performance of the early F4F3 although with more armor and folding wings. Are you saying that an FM2 shot a Zeke off of a Corsair's tail when the Corsair was new to combat? I don't believe that the FM2 was deployed in Feb. 1943 when the Corsair first went into combat.


----------



## Man O War (Feb 10, 2009)

The FM2 was in use in early 1944. I'm trying to locate the mission of the FM2 comming to the assistance of the Corsair. As soon as I find it, I'll be sure to post it.

I've read that the climb and turn rate of the FM2 was actually better than the F4F3. While speed was only a couple of MPH over the F4F3, its rate of climb was 3,650 fpm (the F3F3 was 2,050). Ceiling of the FM2 was also slightly better.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2009)

My source shows the early F4F3 as having a SL climb rate was just over 3300 fpm and that it could touch 335 mph at 22000 feet. The F4F4 was less than 2500 fpm at SL. He also states that the FM2 almost retrieved the climb rate of the early F4F3. It is interesting to compare the performance of the early F4F3 with that of the Hurricane and Spitfire. However, some data is confusing because the F4F3 gradually acquired SS tanks which were heavier and held less fuel and took on more armor and thus lost performance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2009)

Personal favorites aside, I still feel the N1K2/J Shiden-Kai was the Best, followed by the F4U-4...

We need to make a new Poll, as this one is old and soggy, and the results up top are all bogus....


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2009)

I realise that numbers on paper don't tell the whole story but I have a book that gives the Shiden's performance as a Vmax of 369 mph at 18,370 feet and a service ceiling of 35,300 feet. The F4U4 could do 380 mph at SL, had a Vmax of 446 mph at 26000 feet and had a service ceiling of 41000 feet. What quality would make the Shiden superior? I agree this poll has gotten soggy and needs renovation.


----------



## koutsivtom (Apr 7, 2009)

ki - 84 was one of the better planes that flew during ww2 .Very well equiped that it could fight all americans planes,a very good engine(but unfortunatelly without good manufacturing)and design that it was very well flown at middle and big hights.Ki - 84 with better quality of fuel and more skilled pilots would be the winner in the Pacific!When it was produced the japanese had lost all the good pilots,the factories were almost destroyed and the fuel was terrible of quality....don't you agree?


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

Ready to hit Ki-84 but not on the list


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 12, 2009)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-pacific-fighter-ii-19120.html

New one made. Locking this one up, all further discussion can be in the new thread.


----------

