# ...searching for the best USAAF interceptor...



## delcyros (Jul 7, 2006)

Actually, the USAAF had little use for an hi alt interceptor, but assume because of some strange reasons the USAAF would need a hi alt interceptor by mid 1943 t deal with heavy bombers. Which would You choose for this role?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

The P38 of course. Thats what it was designed for in the first place.

In 1945, I bet the F4U-5 would have been even better.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 7, 2006)

P-38W

Thinner wing section, about 10-12% chord thickness. No wing fuel tanks. 2xMerlin 61 with 5 blade paddle props. Armament 4xHispano Mk V in the nose with 150/200rpg. Might be able to fit a single 57mm Molins gun into the nose, definitely a 40mm S but with some HE shells.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 7, 2006)

A-20 with a big weapons refit, or a P-38


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

If they would of gotten the bugs worked out of it....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> A-20 with a big weapons refit, or a P-38



An A20? are you kidding?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

I hope so..... I have to go with the P-38 as well, as syscom stated, it was designed for that very same mission...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 7, 2006)

They got used as nightfighters, so why not if it just needed to take down bombers. Put enough guns in the nose et voila. Or of course you could use a Black Widow


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> They got used as nightfighters, so why not if it just needed to take down bombers. Put enough guns in the nose et voila. Or of course you could use a Black Widow



And they didnt have much success at all. It was designed as a low level attack bomber, not a high altitude fighter.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 7, 2006)

The A20 is close to the last thing I expected to see on this thread: worse top speed, worse time to altitude figures, large target size...

Was the P-38W avaible in mid 43?
What do you think of a revised P-39 with superturbochargers for hi alt performance?


----------



## Jank (Jul 7, 2006)

P-38. We're talking about mid 1943. For bombers, it's armament would also have been better than any six .50 wing mounted arrangement. 

Later in the war, I would add the P47M. Its turbo-supercharger maintained 2,800hp all the way up to 32,000ft and she could do 472mph (there were reports of mechanics in the field getting about 490mph through tweaking). Also, she had eight .50's. 

The F4U-5, I believe, was the first post war production variant of the Corsair.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 7, 2006)

I would agree with the P-38 (or the XP-58 ), they would of done the job.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 of course. Thats what it was designed for in the first place.
> 
> In 1945, I bet the F4U-5 would have been even better.



The F7F would be hard to beat in 45. The F8F at the end of the war would be slightly better since it was a designed intercepter.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

davparlr said:


> The F7F would be hard to beat in 45. The F8F at the end of the war would be slightly better since it was a designed intercepter.



I thought the F7F had problems of various degree's that really werent solved untill '46.

F8F? Hmmm, have to think of that. I know it had some range issues.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2006)

Ta 152H-1 ....................... ah wait a minute this is US right


----------



## Jank (Jul 7, 2006)

How was the Bearcat at 30,000ft. and higher altitudes? I thought she wasn't designed for high performance up there (oxygen poor environment).

For instance, the P-51 was a better dogfighter than the P-47D in 1944. That was the case until you got to 25,000ft where the P-47 could pretty well match the P-51. By the time you were at 30,000ft. the Thunderbolt could wax the Mustang.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 7, 2006)

How about a Hellcat?

Nah, I myself would go for something better like the P-38 too.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 8, 2006)

P-38 for two reasons:

1. Rate of climb.

The P-38 was the hardest climbing US fighter of the war. It could get to 25,000 feet while the P-40, P-39, P-47 and P-51A were still lagging far below.

2. Armament.

Heavy, nose mounted and with a large revior of ammunition. .50 cal would light up fuel tanks and punch through armour. The 20mm would do the same and then add 10g of HE to the mix.

The P-38G was the standard for early 1943, capable of about 400 mph at 25,000 feet and able to get there in about 7 min 40 seconds. The H was introduced into service around May 1943 and was just a smidge faster, clocked at about 405 mph at 25,000 feet. The J was introduced late in the year (September) with the redesigned 'beard' nacels, and was significantly faster, clocking about 422 mph at 25,000 feet and could get there in just a smidge over 7 minutes.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 8, 2006)

One thing to put less importance to are range issues for interceptions. No long range fighter sweeps or escorts, pure interceptions. Another issue I have with the P-38 is vulnarability. It seems to me that the combination of large target size and the liquid cooled engines can take less battledamage but I might be wrong here.
It undoubtly is the most stable gunplatform the USAAF had and it´s excelled everything in the climb figure...


----------



## Hop (Jul 8, 2006)

Best USAAF interceptor in mid 1943? Spitfire VIII, hands down. (you didn't specify it had to be US made).


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2006)

That was just plain stoopid...


----------



## davparlr (Jul 8, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> P-38 for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Rate of climb.
> 
> ...



My data shows that the P-38G is "only" capable of getting to 20,000 ft in
8.5 minutes. Of course, we don't know load. I'm sure that there are P-38 lovers that know all the data.

As a sneaky entry, how about the P-80A. With time to climb to 20,000 ft. in 5.5 minutes and a service ceiling of 45,000 ft. it would be the best performing interceptor of the war, excluding the Me-163. Couldn't get good data on the Meteor Mk III, which might be in contention.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2006)

We're talking 1943....


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 8, 2006)

The P-38 could get to 20,000ft as follows

P-38F - 5min 28sec British test
P-38 J-10 - 5min 37sec
P-38L is in the same area but with 64" a lockheed test puts it at 5min flat and one AAF test was at 4.91min but I no longer have that test and cannot confirm conditions.

In '44 104/150 fuel became available with it the AAF raised the highest available MAP to 75" for the P-38J (Documentation is at spitfireperformance.com ) The 8th AF raised aircraft in the war zone to 65" MAP giving the P-38J/L another 500-800fpm. At 75" the estimate climb rate for a P-38J is 4640 at sl

The real killer climber would be the P-38K with 1875hp engines and paddle props. The mule achieved 45,000ft max speed a critical alt was 432Military 450 was expected in WEP. From a standing start it could reach 20,000ft in 5min flat with a military power climb of 4800ft min initially. More on this can be found at
The P38K
Theres a wealth of info about the P-38, Republic, Flying Tigers and others at this site. The P-38K was killed because the WPB did not want to accept a 2 week delay in production.

wmaxt


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 8, 2006)

2 weeks.......too bad. 

The bombing "Droop Snoop" was an idea that rivaled the B-17 for long range bomber use into Germany.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> 2 weeks.......too bad.




Especialy when the AAF evaluatioin of the 1st production (hand fitted cowlings) was tested it was termed "Vastly superior in ALL catagories of measured performance" to the P-47D and P-51B (the best performing P-51 other than the H model). Its initial climb rate at sea level METO power was 4800gt/min and over 5,000ft/min was projected at WEP. AND all this was early '43 before 104/150 fuel!!! 

What if a K was built and a second factory was started in '43? Not even the TA-152 exceeded those numbers - and remember this was an actual plane not a design concept!!

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

The P-38s only real performance lack was in high speed turning. The majority of dogfights were between 250 and 350 mph and there the P-38 was disadvantaged large planform/high wing loading. Once the maneuver flaps deployed that changed it into a very competitive turner even able to take on the zero on occasion.

As an overall fighter I feel its the best the AF had. The P-38 had the best range, load capacity, climb, low speed handling (J/L could power up and hang on their props at as little as 65mph. No snap stalls anywhere, firepower was great 40sec+ .50 ammo and 120/150 20mm ammo and a punch better than the six .50s of the P-51 and less than the P-47 but still lethal at a thousand yards! 

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

delcyros said:


> One thing to put less importance to are range issues for interceptions. No long range fighter sweeps or escorts, pure interceptions. Another issue I have with the P-38 is vulnarability. It seems to me that the combination of large target size and the liquid cooled engines can take less battledamage but I might be wrong here.
> It undoubtly is the most stable gunplatform the USAAF had and it´s excelled everything in the climb figure...



Del this site has a good article compairing size and shape
P-38 Profile
I've seen pictures where a P-47 could be identified BEHIND a P-38. 

The components of a P-38 are also spread out and redundant, two of everything and the fuel could be cross fed to either engine. The booms and engines were far enough apart it would be unlikely a single burst would damage both and the P-38 could and did fly on one engine very nicely at speeds up to 295mph and could still fly for over 9hrs (not together fuel consumption would be to high) both of which are on the record. Overall a very rugged aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

Something that almost never comes up is relative effectiveness of an aircraft.

The P-38 flew and fought with inexperianced crews (both air and ground) in every theater the AAF flew. They were always out numbered often by up to 10:1 by more experienced Axis aircrews. They never were pushed back with an air to air score of 4:1 in Europe, 5:1 in the Med and 8:1 in the Pacific. Lets look at something else. there were 
10,039 - P-38s built
-3,000 - in the states (depots, training, testing, etc)
-1,400 - PR F4/5s
_______
5,600 - Aircraft delivered to the war effort. Mission Profile ~half escort ~half ground attack

Results
3744 - enemy aircraft in the air
2,000+ - ground
Ships - I'm counting but not all info is in I have at least 15 now
Tanks - unknown count over 50 at this time
Trains - unknown count over 75 so far

P-51
14,857 - P-51s built
-3,000 - States (training etc)
-~500 - PR rolls
_____
11,357 - delivered to war

Mission primarily escort ~85% Used in the ETO and Pacific

Results
5,246 - E/A air to air, escort being target rich and all but296 the the ETO
4,131 ground claims

P-47
15,702 - built
-3000 - in states (Training etc)
_____
12,702 - Delivered to the war effort

Mission escort and Ground attack ~70% escort, 30% ground attack. Used in the ETO and the Pacific.

Results
4,449 - E/A in air to air
3,985 - ground targets

Or to put it another way the 5,600 P-38s got 3744 E/A for a 66% effectiveness. 
The P-47s 12,702 hit 4449 E/A for 35% effectiveness, 84% of which was ETO
The P-51s 11,357 hit 5,246 a 46% effectiveness, 99% of which was in the ETO.

On top of that Ariel control if not supremacy was established by the P-38 in each theater prior to the arrival of either of the others, except over Germany where the P-51 entered combat 3 months after the P-38s. The E/A met the P-51 in Europe and it still wasn't as effective plane for plane as the P-38 which flew with the odd against it!

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Jul 9, 2006)

wmaxt:

wasn't as effective as the P-38 ? are you basing this entirely on your acct of the P-38 numbers given to total kills ? 

~ Man, asking the 8th AF fighter pilots that I have been honoured to interview, they all thought the Stang was superior to the P-38 except in ground attack work

thanks for putting up the comparitive totals, indeed, where was your reference(s) for these please ?







E ♫


----------



## davparlr (Jul 9, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> We're talking 1943....



True, but there were some talk of 1945 too. For 43 the Lightning would do the trick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

My vote goes for the Lightning as well, for reasons stated by lots of people here. I am not going to write a book on it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2006)

If all the P38 was going to do is shoot down bombers, then -38 is the best bet. The centrally located MG's acted like can openers and the tight pattern allowed the pilot to begin opening fire from longer ranges.

But, I'd say that in 1945, the F4U-5 and perhaps the P47N were superior to it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

Erich said:


> wmaxt:
> 
> wasn't as effective as the P-38 ? are you basing this entirely on your acct of the P-38 numbers given to total kills ?
> 
> ...



To a point you are right part of it at least. Air to air kills is certainly not the only criteria by a long shot. I've heard (unfortunately not in person) from a group of P-38/P-51 pilots that the P-38 was better A/A, Art Heiden who's even let his opinion be made public. There are also a number of pilots (most in the 8th) that only flew early versions abd their complaint was the cold not its performance. The Pacific pilots were very much pro P-38s to. Not to minimize either side, there are lots of opinions. 

The problem with other criteria is that I've had trouble finding good data about ground attack, mostly comments about how successful the mission was. I will keep trying. The production info for the P-51 was Mustang- Mustanges web page. P-38 info from Warren Bodies book on the P-38 and the P-47 data from several web sites. The Kill scores are from a post by Pips
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/lifftwaffe-losses-4089.html
This was the best way I could present it at this time.

The P-38 was competitive for each contemporary model and was a very fine aircraft in all the rolls asked of it - perfect, no. This goes for all the aircraft because comprimises have to be made for each role the aircraft did as I'm sure everyone here already knows. 

My intention was and is to show that plane for plane the P-38s contribution was as great or greater than the other AAF aircraft based on ability of the aircraft/pilots. The P-51 was an inexpensive but very good aircraft. Its only claim to fame was escort (in huge numbers) and finaly the ground attacks (after we owned the sky) for the last 8months of the war in Europe. One P-38/P51 pilot (Elliot Dent) said, the P-51 was a super P-40 and not in the same leage. The P-38 never had those advantages and look at what was achieved just as a fighter. The P-51 never amounted to anything in the Pacific. BTW the P-38 ran from 500 to a high of 750 aircraft in the Pacific until '45 it was never anywhere in great numbers.

Statistics are easy to warp, I think/tried to keep these honest and representitive of the qualities of these aircraft. Comparing scores etc directly is terribly unfair and make no sense if one is only availabe half or less of the time of the other comparee's did.

Sorry I was long winded and maybe a little over the top - its not that simple. Just think, though, what if the P-38 were second sourced in '42? Or the WPB had alowed production of the P-38K in '43? The P-38 had issues esp the early ones but its performance was there!

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Jul 9, 2006)

The P-38 had some serious engine and other issues until the advent of the "J" model.

P-38: Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
Many of the P-38's assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight. The intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that could lower engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge. These problems could have been fixed at the squadron level. Yet, they were not. It took the P-38J-25-LO and L model to eliminate these headaches.

P-38 in European Theatre
The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once.

The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire.

These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down.

Earlier Lightnings had problems with high-speed dives. When the airspeed reached a sufficiently high value, the controls would suddenly lock up and the Lightning would tuck its nose down, making recovery from the dive difficult. In the worst case, the wings of the Lightning could be ripped off if the speed got too high. This problem caused the Lightning often to be unable to follow its Luftwaffe opponents in a dive, causing many of the enemy to be able to escape unscathed. The problem was eventually traced to the formation of a shock wave over the wing as the Lightning reached transonic speeds, this shock wave causing the elevator to lose much of its effectiveness. The problem was not cured until the advent of the P-38J-25-LO, which introduced a set of compressibility flaps under the wing which changed the pattern of the shock wave over the wing when they were extended, restoring the function of the elevator.

The P-38J version of the Lightning cured many of the ills that had been suffered by the earlier versions of the Lockheed fighter, producing a truly world-class fighter which could mix it up with virtually any other fighter in the world.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 9, 2006)

wmaxt, you have done an admirable job of enlightening us to the capabilities and contribution of the P-38. I am certainly more impressed by it, almost as impressed as I am by you knowledge of it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

A couple of things I need to clarify
Photo recon versions ov the P-38 could have been as low as 900, the number I used above is a commonly cited number but the actual qty is unknown as it was a common conversion at refit centers and in the feild. Approximately 500 were used in the ETO/MTO plus spares and training aircraft.
The number of stateside aircraft is an educated est on my part and include spares, prototypes, training, refit/modification centers, and depots for shipping. The first 796 (by count on production lists) P-38s were not combat worthy. I used the same number for all three aircraft because it seemed reasonable to me that more aircraft would be overkill and fewer unreasonable the other functions were required by all aircraft.

Jank yes I mentioned the "Issues" of earlier aircraft but did not detail them, however ALL those serious problems are included in the 451 P-38s the 8th AF lost in Europe to all causes. I'll say it again ALL those problems, enemy losses, training accidents (you'd be suprised at how many) collisions and wright offs added up to 451 P-38s lost!! Check out the 8th AF combat losses page
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8thaflosses.shtml
The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference. At the time the P-38 was the only plane the AAF had that could compete in Europe they had to fly it anyway.

Dave, thanks, but I'm not infalable and I don't know it all, I find more every day about all the planes here. If you see something that doesn't make sense please point it out.

wmaxt


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 10, 2006)

I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the Bell P-63A Kingcobra - this just sneaks into the 1943 timeframe (first deliveries in October). It had a maximum altitude of 43,000 feet and climbed to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes, at which it did 410 mph. That big cannon could (for once) have been useful against bombers too. 

The max speed and altitude performance were similar to the P-38J, but the P-63 climbed faster. The Soviets, who were the main users, employed it as a high-altitude interceptor I believe.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2006)

Tony Williams said:


> I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the Bell P-63A Kingcobra - this just sneaks into the 1943 timeframe (first deliveries in October). It had a maximum altitude of 43,000 feet and climbed to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes, at which it did 410 mph. That big cannon could (for once) have been useful against bombers too.
> 
> The max speed and altitude performance were similar to the P-38J, but the P-63 climbed faster. The Soviets, who were the main users, employed it as a high-altitude interceptor I believe.
> 
> Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum



? The P-38J in METO power climbed to 15,000ft in 5 min and 25,000ft in 9 min Given that climb rate decreases with altitude the P-38J is under 7 min to 20,000ft. If you check P-38J Performance Test you will find that a P-38J-10 could do it in 5min 37sec, WEP power. They have tests on later marks to. 

The P-63 was what the P-39 needed to be and was before the AAF striped the turbo out.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Jul 10, 2006)

Wmaxt said, *"The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference."*

The "real difference" was the rate of occurrence and it was a big difference for the pre-"J" models. The problems with the P-38, prior to their being ironed out, were quite common. A P-38 mechanic once told me that it was easier to keep a B-17 up and running than a P-38. I didn't ask him which P-38 model he was referring to but I assume it was a pre-"J" model. 

Incidents where the P-51's lost their tail, while it did happen, were actually a rare occurrence. Obviously, loosing tails during combat manuevers are stories that spread quickly, far and wide among pilots. If anything, losing a tail is a story with dramatic, sensational value unlike a mechnical problem that grounds a P-38 or causes it to turn back during a mission. 

What issues are you referring to with the P-47? I am aware that there were serious mechanical teething problems with the "M" model but no other problems that would be considered significant with the P-47's. It was really considered a rock of reliability.

The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51 and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

The P38's were hard to maintain because their origional design reflected a production rate of less than a hundred planes. Since Lockheed had no expectation that it would be a mass produced airplane, they were essentially designed to be hand built.

The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly.

Now of course the pilots in the SW Pacific never thought they were flying in an inferior plane and always loved it.


----------



## Jank (Jul 10, 2006)

*"The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly."*

The Report of Joint Fighter Conference, October 1944 has a contrary position. To be frank, I have seen no other opinions or evaluations on the matter. Perhaps you could point me to a source that states differently.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

Jank said:


> *"The stories about the P38 being a hard plane to master came from the poor training the pilots received in the fist couple of years of the war. Once the syllabus was perfected, the plane became one of the easyist to fly."*
> 
> The Report of Joint Fighter Conference, October 1944 has a contrary position. To be frank, I have seen no other opinions or evaluations on the matter. Perhaps you could point me to a source that states differently.



Tony Levier had to fly to the ETO to teach the pilots how to operate the plane with one engine out. Once he showed them how to do it, the issues of how complex the plane was to fly began to fall by the wayside.

The 8th and 9th AF always seemed to have problems with the P38 that the other commands didnt. 

At Chino 2004, I had the opportunity to speak to a 475th FG pilot who told me (and the others who stopped to listen in) that the -38 WAS the fighter to have in the PTO, and it was no more tough a plane to master than any other twin engined plane. It was all about training. Once you knew what you were doing, then it all fell into place.


----------



## Jank (Jul 10, 2006)

*"...it was no more tough a plane to master than any other twin engined plane."*

Perhaps that explains it. The P-51 isn't a twin engined plane. 

To reiterate, I said, "The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. *It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51* and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice."


----------



## delcyros (Jul 10, 2006)

It seems, that the P-38 was hot in every role it had to fullfill:
Escort, ground attack, interceptions, dogfighting, recon.
Assume the US would have concentrated on the P-38 and no P-47/P-51 would reach maturity. How many P-38 could have been produced instaed of Thuds and Stangs?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

delcyros said:


> It seems, that the P-38 was hot in every role it had to fullfill:
> Escort, ground attack, interceptions, dogfighting, recon.
> Assume the US would have concentrated on the P-38 and no P-47/P-51 would reach maturity. How many P-38 could have been produced instaed of Thuds and Stangs?



I wouldnt say it was a great dog fighter. In 1944, it was just barely able to handle the -109's and -190's. In 1945 it was outclassed by the latest German fighters.

In one of the biggest riddles on American aircraft production in WW2, no one can explain why there was only a single factory for the -38 (I knwo about the Nashville plant, but it came online late in the war and didnt build many).

That being said, if the half dozen or so -51 and -47 plants were converted to the -38..... production could easily top 1000 per month.


----------



## Jank (Jul 10, 2006)

Delcyros said, *"It seems, that the P-38 was hot in every role it had to fullfill:
Escort, ground attack, interceptions, dogfighting, recon."*

Perhaps the word "hot" is a bit ambiguous but I would generally agree with your statement, although to be fair, the P-38 was no furball fighter, as indicated by syscom3. I think that the P-38, after the introduction of the "J" model, could alone, generally perform those tasks that the P-51 and P-47 came to excel at separately, namely escort and ground attack.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 10, 2006)

...after seeing one of the old veterans on a flight meeting at Zurich, I have been very impressed by the sleek lines of the P-38. I admit that I like the design much. It may not have been a furball fighter but it did the job in the Pacific, from the early stage up to wars end against some of the finest furball fighters of ww2. Altough advanced pilot tactics and a better energy management may have contributed a lot to the performance of the P-38 in this theatre.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> ? The P-38J in METO power climbed to 15,000ft in 5 min and 25,000ft in 9 min Given that climb rate decreases with altitude the P-38J is under 7 min to 20,000ft. If you check P-38J Performance Test you will find that a P-38J-10 could do it in 5min 37sec, WEP power. They have tests on later marks to.


The figure for the P-63A was 7.3 minutes to *25,000 *feet, not 20,000 (source: The American Fighter).

Since both the P-38 and the P-63 used the Allison engine, any souping-up to boost the P-38's performance could have equally been applied to the P-63 if required, but the USAAF didn't need a high-altitude interceptor.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 10, 2006)

I agree with you the p63 could really climb and its armament looked potent


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 10, 2006)

Jank said:


> I think that the P-38, after the introduction of the "J" model, could alone, generally perform those tasks that the P-51 and P-47 came to excel at separately, namely escort and ground attack.


I disagree over the ground attack - those liquid-cooled engines were a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than air-cooled ones. And the P-38 was expensive compared with single-engined planes, so you really didn't want to lose them (ground attack was expensive in plane losses):

P-51D = $54,000
P-47D = $85,000
P-38L = $115,000

(source: USAF Museum World War II aircraft )

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

The P63 had two disadvantages. Limited endurance and its dangerous stall charchteristics.

Plus the P38 could be pressed into doing other roles, which the P63 couldnt do.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

What made the P38 so great for ground attack was its bomb load capability and the centrally located MG's. The -47 had more of them, but the convergence issues meant there was only a short time for all of them to be used with deadly effect.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 10, 2006)

The P63 was quick enough to altitude as to compliment any available radar of the time and this is a discussion of interceptors range is not a factor so I've been told by many others on this forum as a prerequisite of an interceptor and it was single engined which leads to a lot less snags or aborts


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> What made the P38 so great for ground attack was its bomb load capability and the centrally located MG's. The -47 had more of them, but the convergence issues meant there was only a short time for all of them to be used with deadly effect.


I really don't think that convergence was much of an issue in ground attack - if you look at gun camera footage of strafing runs (especially against ships, where you can see the bullet splashes) you can see that only a small percentage of the shots hit the target - a spread of fire was probably quite useful to make sure they hit their targets. 

It's not as if any of the US planes carried powerful anti-tank guns which needed to hit small targets...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> The P63 was quick enough to altitude as to compliment any available radar of the time and this is a discussion of interceptors range is not a factor so I've been told by many others on this forum as a prerequisite of an interceptor and it was single engined which leads to a lot less snags or aborts



Endurance counts. Long loiter times means multiple attack or reattck times. Plus you can get into position and your squadron/group formed up long before the enemy is in range instead of performing a last second scramble to get airborne.


----------



## Jank (Jul 10, 2006)

Syscom said, *"What made the P38 so great for ground attack was its bomb load capability and the centrally located MG's. The -47 had more of them, but the convergence issues meant there was only a short time for all of them to be used with deadly effect."*

Agreed but I don't see too much downside of the Thunderbolt's 8 x .50's either.

Tony has a good point about the survivability of in-line engines. Even having two is not necessarily an advantage over a single round engine.

From Report of Joint Fighter Conference at pg. 86-87:

Lieutenant GAVIN: "In connection with this discussion by the aircraft manufacturers, on the preference of an engine, I think it would be interesting if we could have a comment from some of the Army people here as to the relative vulnerability of the liquid-cooled and air-cooled installations based on their experience in Eurpoe.

Colonel GARMAN: "I can speak only for the African theatre and for only a particular type of operation. The P-38 was used at low level on many occasions and we found that it was quite vulnerable to ground fire - any type of ground fire, even small-arms fire. But other airplanes also experienced that same ground fire and the radial engines brought the planes home. You can't lay down any hard and fast rule and say the in-line is no good at low altitude as far as ground fire is concerned. It all depends on the operation entirely.

Lieutenant Colonel TYLER: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47 is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission that incurs damage. That may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which, but it certainly can take it better than the other types.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Endurance counts. Long loiter times means multiple attack or reattck times. Plus you can get into position and your squadron/group formed up long before the enemy is in range instead of performing a last second scramble to get airborne.


Of course long endurance is always an advantage, even for an interceptor, provided that it doesn't compromise rate of climb, speed and agility (it is unwise to assume that the attacking bomber fleets will *never *face escort fighters - the Luftwaffe got a rude shock over that...). The problem is that carrying loads of fuel *does *affect those characteristics. 

The pros and cons are rather dependent on the circumstances. I've noticed that the USA is a rather large place, and to provide a comprehensive fighter defence of *all *of it with 1940s technology would have required an enormous number of aircraft, pilots and air bases. So it would appear more sensible to focus on the bits that you need to protect - cities, ports, bases - and base interceptors close to them. In that case, they don't need a long endurance.

That situation is not very different from that faced by the UK in the BoB. The short-range Spitfire and Hurricane were as likely to run out of ammo as fuel. 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Tony Williams said:


> ......The pros and cons are rather dependent on the circumstances. I've noticed that the USA is a rather large place, and to provide a comprehensive fighter defence of *all *of it with 1940s technology would have required an enormous number of aircraft, pilots and air bases. So it would appear more sensible to focus on the bits that you need to protect - cities, ports, bases - and base interceptors close to them. In that case, they don't need a long endurance.



Interesting you brought that up. I wonder if the AAF preferred a slight tradeoff of agility for better range. Although if I remember correctly, the use of drop tanks for the fighters was actively discouraged so as not to interfere with the unescorted long range bomber doctrine.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 11, 2006)

The P-38's my favorite plane. I know I read of concerns about it being a complicated plane to fly and maintain. ALso, serious visibility issues.

I wonder if they could have put four 20 milimeter cannons in the nose. That would have been sweet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> The P-38's my favorite plane. I know I read of concerns about it being a complicated plane to fly and maintain.


It was only complicated becuase at the time the USAAF gave little consideration to in-depth twin engine aircraft training.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 11, 2006)

Tony Williams said:


> I disagree over the ground attack - those liquid-cooled engines were a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than air-cooled ones. And the P-38 was expensive compared with single-engined planes, so you really didn't want to lose them (ground attack was expensive in plane losses):
> 
> P-51D = $54,000
> P-47D = $85,000
> ...



Tony the actual numbers are
Plane - 1943 ------ 1944 ----- 1945
P-38 --$105,567 - $97,1547 - $95,150
P-47 --$104,258 - $85,958 -- $83,001
P-51 --$58,824 -- $51,572 -- $50,985

Source AAF Statistical Digest

As you can see it wasn't much higher than the P-47 but is was more expensive and more difficult to maintain, Post war it was an obvious economy move to get rid of the P-38 for the P-51 and its lack of turbo ducting.

If you surprised a P-38 and got into a furball at 350-400mph the P-38 was at a dissadvantage because it performed turns poorly in that regime. It was a very good/exceptional energy fighter. Its props were 3 bladed and the power separated into two sources allowing each blade, prop, engine to get the most out of them. It also has to be remembered that advanced flight techniques and long range (300gal) drop tanks that made the P-38 so potent in the Pacific were rarely/never used in Europe. Another thing that must be kept in context is the model in question, pre-J P-38s had serious issues with cold, fuel/engines, compresability and other related problems. Other than the cold all WWII fighters went through the same problems esp the P-47. The P-51Bs were called "experimental" by the 8th AF commanders until the fuel/aircraft problems were ironed out, about March '44. The 474th FG actually went to AAF brass to keep their P-38s over P-47/P-51s, and a number of pilots like Art Heiden flew both and think the P-38L was a better fighting plane than the P-51s.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Jul 11, 2006)

I do not take issue with the production costs advanced by Wmaxt. I would point out, however, that there are additional costs (both in time and money)involved here such as maintenance and pilot training. There seems to be a general consensus that the complicated nature or difficulty in mastering was really due to insufficient training.

By analogy, I suppose one could say that surgery is difficult to master compared to carpentry (just as mastering the P-38 is more difficult than mastering the P-51) after which it would undoubtedly be pointed pointed out that with the proper training, surgery wouldn't be difficult. 

In the end, though, casting the issue in those terms does not make mastery the P-38 less burdensome or difficult on the USAAF or the pilots flying her.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 11, 2006)

Jank said:


> Wmaxt said, *"The problems with the P-38 were public not so with the P-51 (that still lost tail sections in combat in April '45) or the P-47 thats the only real difference."*
> 
> The "real difference" was the rate of occurrence and it was a big difference for the pre-"J" models. The problems with the P-38, prior to their being ironed out, were quite common. A P-38 mechanic once told me that it was easier to keep a B-17 up and running than a P-38. I didn't ask him which P-38 model he was referring to but I assume it was a pre-"J" model.



It probably was pre J. However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s. The difference was that it was never made public like the P-38. Remember the P-38 went there first and those problems were anylized and solutions implimented into other aircraft as appropriate. 



Jank said:


> Incidents where the P-51's lost their tail, while it did happen, were actually a rare occurrence. Obviously, loosing tails during combat manuevers are stories that spread quickly, far and wide among pilots. If anything, losing a tail is a story with dramatic, sensational value unlike a mechnical problem that grounds a P-38 or causes it to turn back during a mission.



Not that rare early on and in testing, they were beefed up considerably by the D model which required a redesign anyway to accomodate the bubble canopy. My comment was not to say they were common but that the P-51 had developemental issues as well, it took two years of development before the B/C P-51s were ready. The abort rate shown above is no joke, when the engine quits in a P-38 he feathers it and goes home the P-51 pilot becomes dead or a guest. The P-38s problems were in front of everybody not just over the Mojave desert. 



Jank said:


> What issues are you referring to with the P-47? I am aware that there were serious mechanical teething problems with the "M" model but no other problems that would be considered significant with the P-47's. It was really considered a rock of reliability.



Yes it was after it got to combat. Its been awhile since I reviewed the P-47 data but in addition they had compressability issues (The N model had slats like the P-38s). They had a rash of turbo/engine issues early on. I belive it had a two year plus development period to. Range and climb wern't solved until the D-25 in mid '44 even then.



Jank said:


> The P-38 was a great aircraft. It was expensive to build and to maintain. It was a plane that was harder to master than a P-51 and the Allies had decided that sheer numbers in the hands of run of the mill mediocre pilots was the strategy of choice.



True enough. I'm not putting down either aircraft, just pointing out they needed development for the jobs they were to do. The difference is that those problems were public with the P-38 so people tend to think it was the only one. The F-22 has 8 years development before production. The P-38 with its issues still did the job assigned to it and gave the others time/information to be better prepared when they got there.

wmaxt


----------



## Twitch (Jul 11, 2006)

Tha P-38 could never handle 4 20 mms in the nose. The 49th had a P-38 with 6 .50s and when Dickk Bong flew it he agreed with Ralph Wandrey and Paul Murphey that it was way too nose heavy.

Art Heiden wasn't even an ace so the P-38 sure didn't help him prove his statement. It's pretty hard to say it was a better fighting plane than the P-51 when you're winscreen was fogged up due to inadequate defrosting and you're fighting a missfire in on engine that can't shake its problem with cold moisture ingestion as your fingers grown numb from the lack of heat.

As great as the P-38 was in the Pacific it was puke over Europe-North Afrika at altitude. It boils down to the fact that the guys in the ETO didn't want a plane like the P-38. If the Japanese philosophy of aircraft design and construction was on par with the German's the P-38 wouldn't have excelled over there either.


----------



## Jank (Jul 11, 2006)

*"However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s."*

I find that very hard to believe. Can you source that for me?

*"Its been awhile since I reviewed the P-47 data but in addition they had compressability issues (The N model had slats like the P-38s)."*

All planes had various compressibility issues. That's a function of aerodynamics. The Thunderbolt's issues, which were not substantially greater than many other aircraft, were worked out long before the advent of the "N" model as the "D" model had tackled them. 

We're talking here about problems that keep you grounded or cause you to turn back or make you unable to perform under mission and or life threatening circumstances. I still disagree with you about the incidence of tail losses. It is a very sensational thing and got a lot more and far reaching press than it deserved which probably makes it seem like it was a bigger problem. It was corrected fairly quickly after which it was rare event indeed. The P-38 had very serious problems on the other hand that persisted until the middle of 1943 with the "J" model.

*"Range and climb wern't solved until the D-25 in mid '44 even then."*

Huh? Those aren't the same sort of "problems" that we are talking about here. That's just a performance limitation of an earlier version of the aircraft operating perfectly well. All aircraft go through performance enhancing modifications that solve climb, speed, etc. "problems" as you put it. The P-47M solved the speed "problem" of the Thunderbolt as well I suppose. It's just too bad the paddle blade didn't make it on the Jug sooner. A climb rate at S/L of 3,200fpm from a 14,500lb single engined airplane is impressive when you consider the P-51's was less than 3,500fpm.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> ....
> As great as the P-38 was in the Pacific it was puke over Europe-North Afrika at altitude. It boils down to the fact that the guys in the ETO didn't want a plane like the P-38. If the Japanese philosophy of aircraft design and construction was on par with the German's the P-38 wouldn't have excelled over there either.....



Ive never heard of the cold weather issues in the MTO.

Come to think of it, Ive never heard of that problem either, with the 11th AF -38's flying in Alaska.


----------



## Erich (Jul 11, 2006)

sadly this multi-paged thread is going down like other comparitive threads, P-38 against anything the US had in it's aerial arsenal, so let it be will ya !!

yes it got cold up at 20-25,000 in the Med, think winter and you can definately add on more degrees. Simply put the P-38 could not take on the later GErman Luftwaffe single engine jobs, the Stang and the Jug could. Yeah I know I am going to hear a tirade from the pro--P38 clan any minute now .......


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Erich said:


> ....imply put the P-38 could not take on the later GErman Luftwaffe single engine jobs, the Stang and the Jug could. Yeah I know I am going to hear a tirade from the pro--P38 clan any minute now .......



I agree with you. the -38 was becoming dated by the end of 1944 (at least in Europe).


----------



## Jank (Jul 11, 2006)

Erich, I am a big Thunderbolt fan (surprise, surprise) and push its virtues whenever I can but am a bit puzzled by your last statement. 

Why was the P-47D with water injection and paddle prop better able to tangle with the late war waffle jobs (Luftwaffe) better than the P-38J's and L's?


----------



## Erich (Jul 11, 2006)

who was still flying them in late 44 ? L's ? One 9th AF unit the 474th fg. The Stang had the range the quickness the manuverability, better optics and comfortability in the cockpit. this is coming from 55th fg vets and 20th fg vets

The PTO is another matter altogether

I remember Hub Zemke going from the P-47 upon his move to a P-38 in the 8th AF 479th and then finally the Stang until his accident in the clouds. Give me the Thunderbolt any day was his comment to me back in 91 and 92


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2006)

Erich said:


> who was still flying them in late 44 ? L's ? One 9th AF unit the 474th fg.


Was it they or another unit who didn't want to give up their P-38s? I thought I read this somewhere....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 11, 2006)

> "However, the P-51B had a 30/32% abort rate prior to March '44, the same as the P-38s."





> I find that very hard to believe. Can you source that for me?


Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth describes many many missions while assigned the B's and C's, and every single sortie he was a part of, several planes aborted for various reasons, which is why they would launch 4 backup/replacement planes along with the mission... They knew several would turn around....

And as for the P-51D model, those damn engines went through spark plugs faster than they could keep em supplied.... Alot of guys had to land at alternative airfields because of the fouling problem, and wait a day or 2 for more to be supplied....

For this reason, and many others, I am not a big fan of the Mustang...


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 11, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth describes many many missions while assigned the B's and C's, and every single sortie he was a part of, several planes aborted for various reasons, which is why they would launch 4 backup/replacement planes along with the mission... They knew several would turn around....
> 
> And as for the P-51D model, those damn engines went through spark plugs faster than they could keep em supplied.... Alot of guys had to land at alternative airfields because of the fouling problem, and wait a day or 2 for more to be supplied....
> 
> For this reason, and many others, I am not a big fan of the Mustang...


I had the opportunity to listen to this guy who was a fitter or aero engine and he worked on Allison and stated that if the engine was worked hard you dropped the oil and the magnetic drain plug was covered with iron filings and he stated the Merlin would take a more of a beating without what he called self destruction


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Anyway you look at it, the P38 was superior to the P51 in the bomber interceptor role.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 11, 2006)

I think that the P-38 would have been improved by a cockpit/armament layout like that of the later DH Hornet or Vampire - with the cockpit in the nose, the gun actions and magazines behind, and the gun barrels running underneath and to each side of the cockpit. That would have provided better visibility for the pilot, taken the gun muzzles out of his sight line so he wouldn't be blinded by muzzle flash at night, put the ammo supply over the CG so the trim didn't change as it was used up, and (for the same reason) made it easier to fit different armaments.

My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Jank (Jul 11, 2006)

Thanks Les. That's a horrible rate. 

Agreed that the P-38 was better than the P-51. I'm still trying to understand Erich's point that the P-47 could take on the later Luftwaffe planes better than the P-38.

Why?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2006)

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Tony Williams said:


> .....My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.



The fact it was the only fighter able to engage any fighters 1600 miles from base and defeat them makes it the premier long range fighter of WW2


----------



## Jank (Jul 11, 2006)

Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?

The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S. 

Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2006)

Jank said:


> Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?
> 
> The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S.
> 
> Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?



FEAF P38's flew 1600 mile missions from Biak to Balikpapin and Palawan to Singapore. And that was one way milage.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable.


The two tend to go together. To be a steady gun platform, an aircraft needs strong longitudinal stability. But for agility - which basically means the speed of response to the controls - a plane needs weak stability. You can't have it both ways!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.


That's what Mike Alba told me. He also confirmed the center tank/ CG problem on the P-51 as well. He flew P-51Bs and "Cs" that were converted from "Bs." He said the P-51 C without the small fin in front of the vertical stabilizer made the aircraft real unstable, maybe the basis for his comment on maneuverability. Overall he said the P-38 was a finer combat aircraft and it made him feel comfortable in combat because of the 2 engines.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.



You have to define the envelope, the P-51 had an edge in turning at high speeds, above 300mph. Below 300mph or the use of yo-yos the P-38s esp the P-38Ls could deal with it. Often the P-38 jock would challenge a P-51 to a fight starting on the ground. Using climb, boom zoom and yo-yos the P-38 could get multiple passes on the P-51 before they ever even got to altitude. In the maneuvering tactics the pilots in Europe didn't like Fighters, twin-engine fighters esp and it was never supported fully and never exploited the advantages of throttle differentiation etc like they did in the Pacific. The L models saw little action in Europe and many pilots like Art Heiden felt it was better in all regimes except in some cases top speed, and ease of training. 

Flyboy, The 474th FG went to the top brass of the 8th/9th AF to keep their aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## Twitch (Jul 12, 2006)

As Erich had pointed out this thread is in no man's land. The original topic was regarding the best USAF INTERCEPTOR, not escort, not fighter-bomber, not stunt plane.

I'd feel the best at taking off to intercept bombers where range is not a paramount concern and maneverability is not the life deciding factor there is only one plane- the P-47. Heb Zemke once told me long ago that any D block production with the improved prop could hit 30,000 feet in 13 minutes instead of 20 before. Ns were better yet. So we have a plane that can climb adequately.

8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met. As a gun platform it was never criticized by those who flew it at high or low altitude. At 750 RPM ROF this translates out to 34 seconds of fire

The Ds could top 40-42,000 feet in ceiling so unless it was a very late war Uberplane any bomber could be reached.

At 30,000 feet the Ds hit 426-433 MPH and the N 460 MPH.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 12, 2006)

The P-47, esspecially the late war models would be great in this role. Stable gunplatform, excellent climb and hi alt behavior, rugged. I would wonder, how the F4U would compare against it in this role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Flyboy, The 474th FG went to the top brass of the 8th/9th AF to keep their aircraft.
> 
> wmaxt



Thanks!


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2006)

Twitch confirms my opinion.......drop this please as it is another "my craft is better than yours comparisons". My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.

The 474th fg primary role was ground attack and some escoprt duties if they were lucky enough to be able to provide, not going after railroad and MT stock.

113 air kills and 93 a/c ground kills does not say much for the aerial feats of the P-38 unit. I will not even compare what they accomplished to the Pioneer Mustang group the 354th fg with over 700 air kills the top scorere in the ETO. The roles in the 9th were quite diverse in nature.

again the result will be the same as already mentioned through previous topics


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 12, 2006)

Twitch said:


> 8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met.



True - but they never met heavy bombers, which is what they would be facing in this scenario. The Germans and the Japanese both discovered that not even 20mm cannon were really adequate for that, they needed 30mm guns. I think that point still gives the advantage to the P-63...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 12, 2006)

Erich said:


> My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.


Reports from combat vets are interesting and valuable, but should not be taken as gospel - for the simple reason that they frequently disagree with each other. If you ask vets 'which weapon was best' (whether army, air force, or whatever) you will get different responses, even from people who have used the same range of weapons. 

People have different personal preferences for a variety of reasons. It may simply be that they have got used to one weapon, discovered how to make the most of its strengths and minimise its weaknesses, and then are not happy when given another one. I assume that is why some German Experten favoured the Bf 109 over the Fw 190 to the end - as any objective assessment would favour the Fw.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 13, 2006)

Since the Bell FM-1 Airacuda didn't make it into production, I have to vote for the P-38!


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2006)

Tony have never taken their word as gospel, but in this case you have veterans flying the machines we are talking about and none of us have flown these crates in combat. the first word is listen to the vets in association with this very thread.......and yes there will be a difference in opinion naturally


----------



## Twitch (Jul 13, 2006)

The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 13, 2006)

I vote for the P-38, but it would have been interesting if the USAAF could have put turbocharged Allisons on this plane....

USAF Museum - McDonnell XP-67


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2006)

I'm still going for the TA 152H-1


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 13, 2006)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I vote for the P-38, but it would have been interesting if the USAAF could have put turbocharged Allisons on this plane....
> 
> USAF Museum - McDonnell XP-67



All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 13, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.


Given the fact that both the fighter and the target will be moving, affected by buffeting, aim wander etc, the idea of a "three foot square zone" is fantasy. Just look at gun camera footage of ground or sea strafing attacks - the projectile strikes are spread all over the place. A thirty-foot square zone, peppered with small holes, would be more like it. Please note that in the BoB German bombers (small and lightly protected by later standards) still got back to base with hundreds of bullets holes in them. 

The Luftwaffe discovered that the concentrated destruction achieved by one big HE shell hit was more effective than the dispersed damage caused by a large number of small hits. That's why they were working on 55mm aircraft guns in 1945.

Isn't "arguing for the sake of it" what these forums are all about?  

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 14, 2006)

The concentrated firepower of twin 37mm cannons and a host of .30 and .50 machine guns would have made the FM-1 a most formidable intercepter, despite the fact that it was slow and difficult to fly. Of course, it's slow speed and poor climb may have been factors but nonetheless the FM-1 was probably the intercepter by which others were judged. Did I mention it was ugly, too?


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 14, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.




I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 14, 2006)

Tony, Eric,

I to, belive the Pilots accounts are important and would in no way dissmiss them. I do want to say though that when a pilot came from the Pacific to the ETO they all (at least those I've seen) were dissapointed in the lack of 300gal drop tanks that would have pushed the P-38s range to and beyond the P-51s. The lack of tactics to use the P-38 to its full potential, horrified them. One last thing that must be be added to the mix is the model of P-38 the pilots used prior to transition to the P-51. If it was from a P-38H model under the operating conditions in the ETO, Bad cruise technics, bad fuel, no training, cold cockpits - you've heard it all before, under those conditions the aircraft weren't a match for the P-51 once things were ironed out in the P-51. It easily could have worked the other way. Even Doolittle admitted that neither the P-47 or P-51 would have done any better starting first and from scratch that winter of '43/'44 (Warren Bodie P-38, in an interview with Doolittle). Many pilots like Heiden who flew P-38Ls and P-51s thought the 38 was better for combat.

They were all great aircraft, I think the P-38 was best but in the end it worked out, they all did a great job. After the war economics took over. In peace time cheeper is always the final word!

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Jul 14, 2006)

Wmaxt, Erich indicated that the P-47 was better than the P-38 at handling the late war, high performance German fighters.

What tactics would have aided the P-38 that were not used by the P-47? Both fighters, to be effective, needed to utilize boom 'n zoom team tactics and since most all ETO pilots cut their teeth on the P-47, those tactics were well known and widely employed. 

Generally, the tactics of the Japs were inferior to those of the Germans who worked well together as a team. You make it seem as though the Japanese were high tacticians and that the piloting of the P-38 in the PTO reflected that and that when the Americans moved over to the ETO, the Americans were slogging along without the benefit of having honed their skills against a frankly superior foe.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 15, 2006)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.


 
Yes, you are right. Lockheed built an improved version of the P-38 powered with the Continental XIV-1430's as the XP-49, and it didn't even perform as well as a P-38J. So, I think it is safe to say that the XP-67 probably would have been better with turbocharged V-1710's.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 16, 2006)

Gee Tony I always figured these forums were to discuss alternate possibilities and exhange data on some lesser known aircraft and events during the war not to argue.

Gun camera film of strafing runs has no validity of comparison in attacking bomber boxes. Opening fire at optimum range peering through your gunsight which tells where your guns are harmonized is what fighter pilots did everywhere. Every BoB bomber mentioned above was in actuality shot down by RAF fighters with little .303s even if some did limp home! That logic is like saying the Zertorers' massive armament wasn't effective against B-17s simply becaue some made it home damaged. Why would 8 fifties be less effective? Yes do look at gun camera footage and you'll see scads of twin engined A/C falling to the P-47's firepower. I have never met a P-47 pilot that ever mentioned he was poorly armed.

V-1710 That was a pretty bizarre fighter wasn't it? It always looked like some Popular Mechanix illustrator designed it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 16, 2006)

Jank said:


> Wmaxt, Erich indicated that the P-47 was better than the P-38 at handling the late war, high performance German fighters.
> 
> What tactics would have aided the P-38 that were not used by the P-47? Both fighters, to be effective, needed to utilize boom 'n zoom team tactics and since most all ETO pilots cut their teeth on the P-47, those tactics were well known and widely employed.
> 
> Generally, the tactics of the Japs were inferior to those of the Germans who worked well together as a team. You make it seem as though the Japanese were high tacticians and that the piloting of the P-38 in the PTO reflected that and that when the Americans moved over to the ETO, the Americans were slogging along without the benefit of having honed their skills against a frankly superior foe.



The majority of Pilots that transitioned from P-38s to P-51s did so from early versions of the P-38. A quote from Art Heiden

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of '43/'44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L out rolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin of split-s or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to innate. You just couldn't get away from a P-38L. Whatever the German could do the P-38L could do better."

Or

"The P-51 was a new plane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 kept us on our toes and constantly busy-far more critical to fly. We were disappointed with the 51s rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, a rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing to do. The P-38 was an interceptor and if both engines were healthy, you could outclimb anyother airplane, and thats what wins dogfights. When your in a dogfight below the treetops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics, and for that matter at any altitude."

Or Robert Carey

"I was never worried for one minute that if I had to tangle with the Luftwaffe, I was going to be at a dissadvantage, because the airplane (P-38) could just outperform them."

Granted there is some exaggeration here but its clear how they felt Carey site is P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey and Heiden's is at http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

Twitch,

Cruise technics in Europe were high rpm/low manifold pressure this was not good on the engines, causing cool oil temps, lead precipitation, made the cold cockpit worse. In the Pacific/Aleutions they used Higher pressure, lower rpm did not have either the extream cold in the cockpits or the engine issues experienced in Europe and it gets as cold on the ground in the Aleutions as it did at altitude in Europe. BTW this also saves fuel extending range. I've already noted that in Europe the 300 gal drop tanks were never used. Pilots from the Pacific comment of flying technics like differential throttle that were almost unknown in Europe. Training is another issue, In Europe transition was often a few flights in the new aircraft and let them go for it. Many pilots of P-38s in Europe had as little as 20 hours in type and no twin engined training at all. In the Pacific it was normal for new pilots to be orientated and trained a bit prior to combat, this was a policy in the 5th AF. The Robert Carey link above will put some incite on P-38 attitudes in Europe.

I'm not contending the P-38 it the greatest ever, I was a very good aircraft, in my opinion, the best AAF fighter in WWII and one of the best piston fighters ever. The others were great to, and certainly in the ball park, just not quite there.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jul 17, 2006)

Hey guys how are you? 
For some it’s been quite a while…
I think this is definitely Wmaxt’s perfect p-38 thread…
Delcyros is owed thanks by all P-38 lovers everywhere; he hit the nail smack on the head. 

There were plenty of ‘experimental’ toys in the mid ’43 (the time limit in this tread) US arsenal…Some were called front line fighters, but the ’38, ’39 or P-40 was all an army flyboy could look forward too. The Army, well fer now lets put aside the ’38; did have brand spanking new P-47Cs that were just being delivered, as of March… no paddle-blades yet either… So they were almost ready; still not quite in her ‘fighting duds’, even the pilots manual called the 7th and 8th gun optional. The P-51 was still the A-36. The last of the initial ordered 500 Apaches were delivered in March of ’43. The B was in service some months later, it may be argued that they were not in number ‘till early ’44, the early ‘Packard-Merlin’ didn’t really work well, the guns that jammed during high G-turns of course stayed that way… Nope she was definitely under development. 

So this seemingly innocent question is a real doosie, as we actually were using fighters in defensive roles at the time, as interceptors, they actually were P-39s or P-40s; or they were P-38s. Now she had her fair share of problems, but if you weren’t flying a reverse lend lease Spitfire, you may have had to face a few FW-190s in your ‘Cobra’ or ‘Hawk’… So what’s left…? 

The Navy was taking fresh Hellcats, the Marines Corsairs, but likely you were in a Wildcat. The Hellcat was a fine bird with no real problems, but it was too slow… The F4U in mid ’43 was probably a bird cage type, or a fresh, still warm from the oven; a glazed F4U. She had the speed…but at best a marginal climb rate and high altitude performance for the task of interceptor, at least in mid ’43, unless you were a ’39 or '40 or Wildcat pilot.

Now is there anything else? …Only the ’38; only the Lightning, we put her aside, good thing. 

Now if we only had another 6 months….


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 17, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Gun camera film of strafing runs has no validity of comparison in attacking bomber boxes. Opening fire at optimum range peering through your gunsight which tells where your guns are harmonized is what fighter pilots did everywhere.



Attacking ground targets was actually easier because the targets were only moving slowly or not at all. That removed one of the problems affecting accurate shooting. In aerial combat, unless you were exactly behind your target, your fire would be 'sprayed', not concentrated, as the target moved across your sights. 

Furthermore, it was very difficult for a pilot to fly his plane and concentrate on keeping the sights exactly on target - the sights would 'drift' during a burst of fire (the RAF called this 'aim wander') and the longer the burst, the more they would drift. Once again, having a spraying effect. 

Finally, the USAAF fighter guns were not generally harmonised at one distance, but each pair was set to a different distance. This meant that some guns would be harmonised to the sights at all normal ranges, but that there wouldn't be any one range at which they were all concentrated. Of course, in attacking a bomber there would be a significant closing speed anyway, which would mean that the range would be constantly shortening, affecting the pattern of fire.

Put those three factors together and you can see why I was dismissive of your claimed 'three foot square' of concentrated fire over three seconds. 



> Every BoB bomber mentioned above was in actuality shot down by RAF fighters with little .303s even if some did limp home! That logic is like saying the Zertorers' massive armament wasn't effective against B-17s simply becaue some made it home damaged. Why would 8 fifties be less effective? Yes do look at gun camera footage and you'll see scads of twin engined A/C falling to the P-47's firepower. I have never met a P-47 pilot that ever mentioned he was poorly armed.


It's basically a percentage issue. Yes, of course many Luftwaffe bombers were shot down in the BoB. However, it is clear that on average this took a lot of effort and many bullets - the RAF was desperate to get the Hispano cannon into service. The more powerful your armament, the shorter the burst of fire you need, and that helps enormously if you also have escort fighters to deal with - you don't want to be sitting behind your bomber pouring fire into it (and being a sitting duck yourself) for any longer than you have to.

I notice you refer to 'twin-engined bombers' and that's significant. The bigger the bombers, the more destruction you needed to achieve to knock them out of the sky. Look at it this way - a .50 bullet was about four times heavier than a .303 and had a slightly higher velocity so, other things being equal, it would do four to five times the damage (the calculated difference being 4.6x). So allowing for their lower rate of fire, eight .50s would inflict damage at three times the rate of eight .303s. 

A Heinkel III (the most common bomber in the BoB) weighed around 10,000 kg loaded, whereas the He 177 weighed 30,000 kg. In other words, a P-47 would have had as much trouble shooting down an He 177 as the RAF fighters had in shooting down the He 111. A Boeing B-17 weighed slightly more than the He 177, a B-29 almost twice as much. Of course, this is a bit simplistic - late-war bombers carried far better armour protection than the German planes in the BoB, so would have been much more difficult to shoot down.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps you appreciate why the Germans and Japanese were moving up to 30mm cannon to deal with the heavy bombers. I don't doubt that the P-47 _could _have shot heavy bombers down, it's just that on average they would have had to spend a very long time pouring shed-loads of ammo into them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 17, 2006)

Some additional evidence for you to consider - an extract from *Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45*:

_The Germans soon discovered that shooting down a big bomber such as a B 17 or B 24 was by no means easy. The examination of wrecks showed that few had less than twenty hits by 20 mm rounds; *the synchronised machine guns carried by Bf 109s and Fw 190s were irrelevant*. The Luftwaffe had used gun cameras to study armament effectiveness since the Spanish Civil War, and after the outbreak of WWII a team under Dr. Theodor W. Schmidt began to analyse all gun camera footage. *The conclusion was that a pilot of average ability hit the target with less than 2% of the projectiles he fired*. That implied that on average 1000 rounds [of 20 mm] had to be fired to bring down a B 17, but even a Fw 190 carried only 500 rounds for its four cannon._

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Twitch (Jul 17, 2006)

Look, every ace I've ever interviewed knew at what range his guns were harmonized and in as many instances as possible they let loose on target at that range. This goes for Germans, British and Americans. USAF weapons were harmonized wherever the crew chief and the pilot agreed to have them converge. Factory settings had little effect on it. You can disagree with the 3 foot square convergence pattern all you want by pilots and crewmen have acknowledged that basic setting for harmonization for me repeatedly over the years. It's been described in published narrative also. Of course one distance is optimum for convergence and varying ranges presented themselves all the time so shots were taken. P-47 pilots and others that were 50-100 yards behind opponents would actually kick rudder to skid so as 4 of their guns were firing point blank on target while the other 4 went astray.

Making firing passes in an energy fighter is what it was all about. No one fired at bomber boxes from oblique angles as they pass before the fighter or dunced in from six o'clock at the same speed to get better aim. Firing passes were made slashingly from above diving down from the front or rear of the formation. Only green kids opened fire too far away.

There was nothing on the Luftwaffe inventory roster that could not be shot down by a P-47 including the huge FW Condor. Ju 88s, Do 17s, He 111s and assorted twin engine bombers were destroyed, as it was, ALL THE TIME. The He 177 was no more than a twin with coupled engines in one nacelle and offered no bulk and size advantage. Hit one nacelle- kill 2 engines- convenient. P-38s downed FW 200s regularly. 

The Japanese were dealing with B-29s and Germans the B-24s and B-17s hence the heavy guns. The Germans and Japanese had NO equivilant that would have been a difficulty for the P-47 or any other fighter to shoot down. To invent fantasy heavies that didn't exist and couldn't be shot down is frivilous at least.

Eight fifties with 34 seconds of combined API fire were quite adequate for anything the P-47 encountered. Name a legitimate Axis bomber in service that it couldn't have killed. You can't because there are none. Since its seems dry statistics and data are paramount over the human factor please note the weight of fire produced by the P-47's 8 M2s was far in excess of almost all other aircraft in mass production with very few exceptions. And there is no denying that many fighters with much less muzzle power than the P-47, like the A6M2 or Ki 84 and the Bf 109 G-6 or K-4 without Rüsätze, successfully shot down Allied heavy bombers. Cockpit areas were ravaged by Axis pilots from ahead and above passes as the most successful way of neutralizing heavy bombers. Why wouldn't that be effective for Thunderbolts even if the Japanese and Germans did have some pretend 4 engine bombers?

Sorry but with all due respect, to state that the Jug could NOT shoot down a "heavy" bomber is just wrong, everyone knows it and contradicts all the gee-whiz stats anyhow.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 17, 2006)

Twitch said:


> You can disagree with the 3 foot square convergence pattern all you want by pilots and crewmen have acknowledged that basic setting for harmonization for me repeatedly over the years.


I suggest you read my post, where I explain about the various reasons why the actual fire hitting the target was not concentrated, regardless of what the harmonisation on the ground might have been. Those are two separate issues.



> The Japanese were dealing with B-29s and Germans the B-24s and B-17s hence the heavy guns. The Germans and Japanese had NO equivilant that would have been a difficulty for the P-47 or any other fighter to shoot down. To invent fantasy heavies that didn't exist and couldn't be shot down is frivilous at least.


The entire basis of the original post was hypothetical: it raised the question of the ideal interceptor for the USA if it were subject to bomber attack - which we know was impossible. So if we are assuming a defence against such attacks, we have to assume the heavy bombers to carry it out.



> Sorry but with all due respect, to state that the Jug could NOT shoot down a "heavy" bomber is just wrong, everyone knows it and contradicts all the gee-whiz stats anyhow.


You really didn't read my post did you? if you had, you would have read the following: *"I don't doubt that the P-47 could have shot heavy bombers down*, it's just that on average they would have had to spend a very long time pouring shed-loads of ammo into them."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

The axis powers never had a heavy bomber similar in capability to what the allies possesed. The "bombers" they had were more of the medium type. P38's and P47's shot down plenty of -88's and Betty's. The P47's eight fifties shredded these bombers and the -38's concentrated firepower was just as deadly.

Perhaps if the axis had heavy bombers as rugged as the allied types, then perhaps the theory of US Armourment as being inadequate would have been proven true.

So the main issue here, would the -38 or the -47 be THE interceptor of choice in 1942 and 1943. 

My vote is for the -38 simply because of its climb capabilitites and long loitering time.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 17, 2006)

> Perhaps if the axis had heavy bombers as rugged as the allied types, then perhaps the theory of US Armourment as being inadequate would have been proven true.



Piaggio 108 was extremely rugged. Accounts of 100+ mg strikes with fin being shot to pieces but able to be repaired by next day.

The problem with machine guns is that they make holes. The sole advantage of the 0.5" is that it makes a larger hole than the 0.303" I'm sure the P-47 could shoot down enemy bombers, but probably not within a 3-second pass. Cannons make the job massively easier.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

red admiral said:


> Piaggio 108 was extremely rugged. Accounts of 100+ mg strikes with fin being shot to pieces but able to be repaired by next day.
> 
> The problem with machine guns is that they make holes. The sole advantage of the 0.5" is that it makes a larger hole than the 0.303" I'm sure the P-47 could shoot down enemy bombers, but probably not within a 3-second pass. Cannons make the job massively easier.



Bullets also tumble on impact and break things in the way. They also have a way of penetrating into engines and making holes for oil and coolant to leak out of.

Look at it this way, a -47 with eight .50's will be spraying lead all over the place occasionally putting a hole in some vital equipment or people. At a short instance in time, the convergence of the guns will ensure a large chunk of metal is blasted out. On the other hand, a -38 guns will act like a hack saw and just cut to pieces anything in its way.

And noone has ever compared the Piaggio to the -17 and -29 for shear strength and rubbedness.


----------



## Jank (Jul 17, 2006)

Syscon3 said, *"So the main issue here, would the -38 or the -47 be THE interceptor of choice in 1942 and 1943. 

My vote is for the -38 simply because of its climb capabilitites and long loitering time."*

I agree but would add the superior weapons layout.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

_"*The P-51 was still the A-36. The last of the initial ordered 500 Apaches were delivered in March of ’43.* The B was in service some months later, it may be argued that they were not in number ‘till early ’44, the early ‘Packard-Merlin’ didn’t really work well, the guns that jammed during high G-turns of course stayed that way… Nope she was definitely under development."_

The XP-51 was the first of the series, they were the fourth and tenth NA-73/NA-83 off the production line. And were tested by the USAAC at Wright Field. 

The U.S then held back 57 Mustang Mk.IA destined for Great Britain. These cannon armed Mustangs became the P-51. They were modified with K-24 cameras and were then designated the F-6A, but were also known as the P-51-1. With the 68th Observation Group F-6As performed the first operational USAAF Mustang sorties of the war. 

The first order for the Mustang from the USAAF was for the NA-97, or A-36A. These arrived in Morroco with the 27th and 86th Fighter-Bomber Groups in April 1943. 

The P-51A then followed the A-36A. Arriving in the CBI with the 311th Fighter-Bomber Group. The planes first combat operation was on 23 November 1943 with 23rd Fighter Group. 

JonJ, the P-51 was the P-51 first and A-36 second.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 18, 2006)

Climb and firepower are the two most important features of a good interceptor. You have to give it to the P-38. Everyone knows Jugs couldn't climb. They dived good, though.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 18, 2006)

While I love both planes the P-47Cs and Ds with the padddle blades could hit 30,000 in 13 minutes. I don't call that bad climbing.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> ..... They dived good, though.



Or you could say they fell faster than the others!


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)




----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 18, 2006)

Still slower than a P-63A - 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes  . And that could presumably have been significantly boosted if required, judging by what was done to the Allison engine in the P-38.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jul 18, 2006)

Hey plan D,
How are you?
Thanks for the help… But what did I say/type that led you to believe I had made an error? What are you trying to tell me, or remind me of? 

As you said XP-51 was the first American designation, but as the ‘series’ goes it was the second, if you are going to be ‘nit picky’ the NA-73X was the first, prototypes are always 1st in the series, and I believe you are mistaken in regard to the ‘order’ of models... As uasual…too much info below

Original privately financed prototype the NA-73X prototype contract was signed on May 23, 1940. On May 29, a provisional RAF procurement was issued for 320 aircraft, contingent on satisfactory testing of the prototype. NAA agreed to start deliveries in January 1941. In a contract approved on September 20, 1940, it was agreed that the fourth and tenth production NA-73s would be the planes diverted to the Army. The designation XP-51 was to be assigned to these two planes.

Vance Breese flew the NA-73X for the first time on October 26, 1940. On November 20, 1940 test pilot Paul Balfour forgot to change fuel tanks, ran out of gas, and the plane ended up on its back in a farmer's field. 

In December 1940, the RAF ordered 300 more of the Mustang Is which embodied minor modifications, assigned NA-73 by NAA.

The NA-73X aircraft resumed flying on January 11, 1941 and continued in the initial development program until being retired on July, 1941.

During testing there were several changes in the geometry of the ventral ducting and the controllable flaps. By the time that the NA-73 had been cleared for production, the duct had had its inlet moved downward so that its upper lip was lower than the underside of the wing, thus avoiding the ingestion of a turbulent boundary layer of air into the radiator cooler.

Since the NA-73X had encountered very few problems during tests, production for the RAF began almost immediately, but the first production Mustang I for the RAF flew for the first time on April 23, 1941, well behind the original schedule. Most of the first 20 RAF Mustang Is were retained by NAA for special measurements and trial installations, designated NA-83 by the factory.

The fourth and tenth NA-73s, XP-51s were delivered to the US Army in May of 1941 for testing at Wright Field, Ohio. Inexplicably, no Army orders were forthcoming.

NA-73s finally arriving in Liverpool on October 24, 1941, had lacked a radio, a gunsight, and certain other equipment which was by contract to be supplied by British manufacturers. The completed aircrafts were evaluated at the Aeroplane Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscome Down and by the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford.

The newly-arrived Mustang was quickly recognized as being the best fighter aircraft yet to be delivered from the USA; it was superior to the Kittyhawk, Airacobra and Spitfire in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes. Maximum speed was 382 mph at 13,000 feet. At all heights up to 20,000 feet, the Mustang was faster than any other fighter then in service with the RAF. Rate of climb, acceleration, speed in a dive, stability, handling in all configurations, rate of roll and radius of turn were all rated as being satisfactory to outstanding. Mustang’s range was nearly double that of any other RAF single-engined fighter. It was 25 to 45 mph faster than the Spitfire V at altitudes up to 15,000 feet. Yet there was the rapid fall-off in performance above 15,000 feet, caused by its low-altitude Allison engine as it was supercharged for best performance at low levels. The relatively poor high altitude performance of the Mustang was more than just a minor deficiency, since most aerial combat over Europe at that time was taking place at medium to high altitudes.

The first RAF unit to receive the Mustang was No 26 Squadron at Gatwick which began to operate the fighter in February 1942. The first Mustang combat mission was undertaken by Flying Officer G. N. Dawson of No. 26 Squadron on May 10, 1942, strafing hangars in France and shooting up a train.

Tactical reports from RAF army cooperation units were; The Mustang I and IAs were able to take an incredible amount of battle damage; The range of the Mustang made it an excellent tactical reconnaissance aircraft and its heavy armament made it effective against most ground targets. At the time at sea level, the Mustang could run away from any enemy aircraft. The flaps were very useful in combat to reduce the turning radius. Mustang Is and IAs served with the RAF up until 1944. It knew few equals in the role of low-altitude interdiction and reconnaissance.

On March 11, 1941, the Lend/Lease Act was passed; September 25, ‘41, the US Army ordered 150 Mustangs under the provisions of Lend-Lease for delivery to Britain. Lend-Lease Mustangs were designated Mustang Mark IA by the RAF and NA-91 by the NAA factory. The British did not get all of these NA-91s. For contractual purposes, these aircraft were assigned the US designation of P-51. The Mustang IA differed from earlier versions in having the machine guns replaced by four 20-mm wing-mounted Hispano cannon, with most of the long barrels protruding well ahead of the wing. Throughout 1941, the Army referred to these aircraft under the name *Apache*, but this was changed to *Mustang* at about the time the deliveries began in mid- 1942, I do not have any info on the number, but as far as I can tell deliveries started with the Peterson Field Recon School in Colorado. In March of 1943, some 25 or so F-6A/P-51s were assigned to the 154th Observation Squadron at Oujda in French Morocco. This was the 1st US Mustang unit. The first mission was a photographic coverage of Kairouan airfield in Tunisia on April 10, 1943, which was the first USAAF Mustang mission of the war. The 1st combat loss was a friendly fire incident in which Allied AAA failed to recognize the difference between the F-6A/P-51 Me-109, with fatal results.

NA-73 Mustang Mk I: 1st batch of 320 aircraft for RAF
1,150-hp twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled V-1710-F3R Allison engine 
382 mph @ 13,000ft 
Four 0.5-in and four 0.303-in machine guns (two .0.5s mounted on underside of engine fired through the prop) 
Many fitted with cameras for reconnaissance

On April 16, 1942, the Army finally ordered 500 NA-97s. The NA-97 was a ground attack version and was designated A-36A. The A-36 seems to have been known by several different names--it was initially called *Apache*, which was the name that the Army initially assigned to the P-51, but there was an effort to change the name to Invader following the invasion of Sicily.

The A-36A differed from previous Mustang versions in having a set of hydraulically-operated perforated door-type dive brakes mounted on both the upper and lower wing surfaces outboard of the wing guns. The brakes were normally recessed into the wings, but were opened to 90 degrees by a hydraulic jack to hold diving speeds down to 250 mph. Armament of six 0.50-inch machine guns (two in lower fuselage nose, four in the wings) was fitted, however the two nose guns were often omitted in service. The wing guns were moved closer to the main landing gear strut in order to minimize stress under taxi and takeoff conditions.

The first A-36A flew on September 21, 1942. Deliveries of the A-36A were completed by the following March. The A-36A equipped the 27th and 86th Fighter Bomber Groups based in Sicily and in Italy. Both of these Groups arrived in North Africa in April of 1943 just after the end of the Tunisian campaign. Their first actions were attacks on the island of Pantelleria, starting on June 6, 1943. The only other Group was the 311, of which I know nothing, except they were based in India.

A-36A (NA-97) "Apache," later "Invader," finally "Mustang" dive bomber variant with hydraulic retractable dive brakes in wings
8,370 lbs normal, 10,700 lbs max 
Six 0.5-in machine guns (two in lower fuselage nose four in the wings), 2 X 500 lbs bombs 
Pylons for two 500-lbs bombs;
Allison twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled V-1710-87 (F21R) 1325 hp at 3000 ft 
356 mph @ 5000 ft "clean," 310 mph w/two 500-lbs bombs 
500 built, three to RAF

The next Army contract for Mustangs consisted of an order on August 24, 1942 for 1200 NA-99 versions with the USAAF designation of P-51A, these aircraft from the start were meant to be fighters, not bombers. The first P-51A flew on February 3, 1943, and the first deliveries began the next month. 310 P-51As were actually built between March and May of 1943 as production was switched over to the Merlin-powered P-51B. 35 P-51As were fitted with twin-K24 camera installations and had their guns removed. These were designated F-6B. 50 P-51As went to the RAF, becoming Mustang IIs. The first P-51A group was the 54th, which remained in Florida for replacement training. Later, P-51As went to Asia with the 23rd, 311th, and 1st Air Commando Groups. Almost all of the P-51As served in the China, Burma, India (CBI) theatre of operations.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jul 18, 2006)

.....continued:

P-51A (NA-99)
6433 lbs empty, 8600 lbs normal, 10,600 lbs max 
Allison V-1710-81 (export V-1710-F20R) engine, 1,200 hp @ takeoff , 1125 hp @ 18,000 ft 
340 mph @ 5000 ft, 360 mph @ 10,000 ft, 380 mph @ 15,000 ft, 390 mph @ 20,000 ft 
2.2 minutes to 5,000 ft, 4.4 minutes to10,000ft, 9.1 minutes to 20,000ft. Service ceiling was 31,350 ft 
No nose guns, four 0.5-in wing machine guns, pylons for two 500-lbs bombs
310 built, 50 to RAF as “Mustang Mk II”

Info from:
*Fighting Mustang: The Chronicle of the P-51, William N. Hess, Doubleday, 1970.
* The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987..
* USAF Museum web site search
*Janes Vintage Aircraft: Tony Holmes, Harper Collins, 2005
* P 51 MUSTANG : From 1940 to 1980 (Planes and Pilots) by Andre Joineau

I did however make a mistake about the ’47…Ds were coming out of the Evansville factory in September of 1942, and Farmingdale February 43. But production block D-22-RE and D-23-RA came out in October 43, and along with paddle blades, T-bolts finally had jettisonable canopies. Twitch, did they field mod ‘47Cs to paddle blades?

Tony…good luck on that ‘63


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

You just proved your initial statement wrong with all that. You claimed in your first statement that the P-51 was still the A-36. But the P-51 came before the A-36, and not just the XP-51. 

Your words : _"The P-51 was still the A-36. The last of the initial ordered 500 Apaches were delivered in March of ’43."_

_"In March of 1943, some 25 or so F-6A/*P-51s* were assigned to the 154th Observation Squadron at Oujda in French Morocco. This was the 1st US Mustang unit. The first mission was a photographic coverage of Kairouan airfield in Tunisia on April 10, 1943, which was the first USAAF Mustang mission of the war."_

How was the P-51 still the A-36 when the P-51 flew into combat first? I knew all that history, and it's all well and good being able to copy it like a parrot. But actually read, and take in the information. 

In order, it went XP-51, P-51, F-6A/P-51-1, A-36A, P-51A.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jul 19, 2006)

plan_D, to me, truth be told, it is very confusing the beginings of the 51... USAAF changing it's mind on the names and designating them in a seeming hap-hazzard manner. 

The two NA-73s (XP-51) the 25 -some report to be as many as 60- or so NA-91 (F-6A/P-51/P-51-1) were diverted or approiated, they were not bought, and they filled no spec; they were the 1st US "Mustang" unit as that was the name the Brits gave the plane they had 'speced'.

In this thread the Spitfire is discounted as a candidate American interceptor. The difference here is what exactly, the NAA factory was in the States?

America never ordeded NA-91s. The US did order On April 16, 1942, and specify NA-97 (A-36A), naming the bird Apache, a name they had unofficially given to the F-6A/P-51 British Mustang; NA-97 was designated A-36A. The Designation stayed the same as the name was changed later in mid '42 to Mustang, however the name Apache 'stuck' to the A-36. After the Invasion of Sicily the pilots tried to get the name changed to 'Invader'.

The US did order and specify NA-99 (P-51A) on August 24, 1942, the first American arcraft of this family to start life with the name of Mustang... Just as the 1st A-36As were rolling from the NAA factory.

Since the NA-91s (F-6A/P-51/P-51-1) resemble NA-99s more than they resemble NA-97s It seems forgotten that in the US, NA-91s are named Apache as well as the A-36A.

Regardless of our dissagreement, the origional thread is about an interceptor, an American interceptor available in mid '43. In mid '43 the Mustang was still the A-36 this is my point.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 20, 2006)

I'm completely confused as to what the thrust is here. Simply model/sub-model evolution?
NA-73 1 made
Mustang I- ie., 2nd NA-73 prototype send to England 319 followed
XP-51 2 made
Mustang I revamp 300 made
P-51 or NA-91 -no letter designation 148 made for RAF with 4 20mms Hehehe! 93 to RAF as Mustang IA, 55 went to USAF as F-6As
P-51A with 4 .50s 310 made as Lend-Lease planes 50 to RAF as Mustang IIs, 35 became F-6Bs
XP-51B 2 made with Packard-built Merlin original designation XP-78 tentative name Apache
A-36A was a version of the P-51A 500 built
P-51B flys 1st mission with 4th FG 12/1/43

Is that generally the sequence?


----------



## gunbird (Jan 30, 2007)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 could get to 20,000ft as follows
> 
> P-38F - 5min 28sec British test
> P-38 J-10 - 5min 37sec
> ...



how about mustang?4500ft/min at 1600 ft

Mustang III Flight Trials


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 2, 2007)

I would think P-38 Lightning as well. P-51 Mustang really doesn't have a good useful range for interception...


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 2, 2007)

What?? For interceptions range doesn't really matter (look at the Spitfire, the 109 or in later years the Lightning - all had short ranges). The Mustang would of managed fine as an interceptor (except for climb rate) and its range would enable it to in to intercept the targets further away from their destination which is a good thing...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 2, 2007)

The Mustang was not an interceptor...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I would think P-38 Lightning as well. P-51 Mustang really doesn't have a good useful range for interception...


Are you nuts? Although the Mustang is not an interceptor, it's range was one of its finest attributes - go back to the library kid!!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 2, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The Mustang was not an interceptor...



Yes but if needs be it could have been used as one although it would of been slower than the other interceptors on the climb. Just because it has a long range doesn't mean it couldn't of been used as an interceptor although I don't think it wouldn't of been that successful as it wasn't designed for being one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I would think P-38 Lightning as well. P-51 Mustang really doesn't have a good useful range for interception...



The P-51 was definatly not an interceptor but where do you come up with that it had no useful range. I think you need to hit the books some more.

P-51D had a range of 1650 mi with external tanks. That is a pretty long range for a single engine fighter of WW2. 

What aircraft do you think escorted the B-17s and B-24s all the way from England to Germany and back?

Besides range is not the most important attribute for an interceptor. Interceptors sit on the ground and get vectored from ground radar into a bomber formation to *intercept* them.


----------

