1941: top 3 Allied fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

i'm ever reclutant to put a twin engined fighter in comparison with SE fighter (WW2 time) also if the P-38 would be the alone capable to do good.
AFAIK the 1st PG was not fully equipped with P-38 and had also P-43 when sent to San Diego.
On the change on the F so do you telling that info on Baugher page are wrong?
 
Vincenzo,
The later P-38Js Ls and earlier P-38Js that were retrofitted with 3,000 psi hydraulically boosted ailerons and dive brakes had very little problems mixing it with the best single engine fighters of Germany and Japan.

drgondog,
Unfortunately the P-38E introduced in the later part of 1941 did not have these features. It was not using the eight degree maneuver flap setting of the P-38F-15 either. Its maximum speed of 381-393 mph. at 20,000 ft. and its ability to reach that altitude in 7.21 minutes would have put its speed and climb very near the top of the listed aircraft. Its range was also near if not on the top of the list. Its firepower was concentrated superbly in the nose.
BUT, all this information brings another aircraft to mind for me. MOSQUITO! Both aircraft shared the same shortcoming. They could not maneuver well enough to be first line DAY fighters. They were both extremely useful but not in a dog-fight situation.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you are referring to Jeff. I stated that the maneuver flap and bomb fuel racks were introduced in the P-38F and had the upgraded engines.

What features did you think I assigned to the E incorrectly?

Vincenzo - I have found far fewer errors in Dean's America's 100K" than Baugher. Not to say he is wrong but there is the source of the dispute. Also, my information is the same as as presented in Olynyk's Stars and Bars for the TOE beginning December 7, 1941 for all AAF/USN/USMC air combat units.

Which aircraft do you choose over the P-38E other than the Spitfire V in context of firepower, climb, operational ceiling and speed?

To summarize.
Fully organized and equipped P-38E's for the 1st Fighter Group.

P-38E had neither dive flaps nor maneuver flaps nor wing racks but did have the GE Turbo supercharger.

The P-38F-1 rolled off the Lockheed Assembly line at the end of March 1942.

The introduction of maneuver flaps and external fuel/wing tank racks started with the F. I do not know whether the series started with maneuver flaps or not and have not found a Lockheed source to validate..
 
I did a little side by side comparisons of the P-40D and P-39D to the other aircraft being discussed. The P-40D can pretty much hold its own to any of the A/C listed in speed and horizontal maneuverability. The P-39D, while slightly less maneuverable than the P-40, has a slight speed advantage at most altitudes.
Also a fact that needs to be taken into consideration is the performance figures listed in most reference books are at an Allison boosting of 40 to 48"Hg. In combat the earlier Allisons were cleared for 60" by General Motors and actually being push in combat to 66 and even 70"Hg. This level of boosting raised the rated hp. of the Allison from 1,150 to over 1,700 at very low altitudes. And I agree with anyone who brings up the fact that this rating was only at very low altitudes. The performance for the early Allisons with the 8.77 geared supercharger fell off rapidly above 15,000 to 16,000 ft.

Jeff
 
What features did you think I assigned to the E incorrectly?

None Bill. Your statements were all valid. I was just trying to clear up (actually for everyone) why I had not considered the P-38 in 1941. I incorrectly directed information at you which I am sure you already knew.

Sorry, Jeff
 
No need to be sorry Jeff - I was just confused. BTW I do know that most reliable sources point to the F-15 as the introduction of the first production maneuvering flap - but the first F, converted to F-4A-1 had the wing tank and uprated engines for sure.

IIRC that F-4 went to Australia and flew the first AAF P-38 combat mission in mid April, 1942 as the Mustang I's were fully operational in the UK.

BTW - I don't consider lack of maneuver flaps or wing racks as indication of not being combat ready, particularly in context of P-39D and P-40E. It might not turn with those two but turning was a highly over rated attribute compared to speed and climb.
 
Last edited:

Basically what I was saying was this. The Hurricane was a stop gap, known to be if not obsolete then almost at its limit when it first flew. Hawkers then went onto the "next generation" designed around large 2000hp+ engines. Hind sight says they would have done much better designing a modern stressed skin AC optimised for low level with a longer range high roll turn and dive performance and able to move from merlin to griffon. The effort put into the Vulture Sabre and Centaurus was completely out of proportion to their usefulness, but that is all hind sight, I know.
 

The first model of Lightning that I can find any reference to the maneuver flaps is the P-38F-15 where Dean talks about their eight degree maneuver setting.

Bill, do you happen to know the altitudes at which the P-38E's climb rate falls to 1,000, 500 and 100 fpm.?
 
I agree with this to a certain limit. The P-38 was a BIG fighter. It had excellent speed and climb but it took more than your average pilot in 1941 to extract its potential in a 1 on 1 contest against another fighter.

Jeff
 
pbehn said:
The Hurricane was a stop gap, known to be if not obsolete then almost at its limit when it first flew.
Click to expand...

Hardly. When it first flew it was one of the two highest performing single seat fighters in the world. When it entered service it was still that. It didn't have the room for development that it's near contemporary Spitfires and Bf 109s had, but it was not obsolete at the cutting edge until 1941, two years into the war, and continued to serve with distinction elsewhere.

It was never a stop gap. It was one of the two aircraft that Fighter Command was built around in the pre-war years. It didn't fill a gap until the Spitfire arrived. It was developed alongside the Spitfire and at the expense of other contenders.

After a visit to see the Spitfire mock up at Woolston in April 1935 Sorley wrote to the Air Ministry's Directorate of Technical Development:

"I then suggest we should now speculate the costs of jigs and tools for both the Hawker [Hurricane] and Supermarine [Spitfire] aircraft while the prototypes are being completed. The risk of a dead loss is to my mind small since both designers have been notable for their first time successes. We could then select either, or both, for production to commence immediately we have satisfied ourselves of their flying capabilities. If by some chance they both should fail then we shall still have the Gloster F7/30 to fall back on."

Not obsolete when it first flew and certainly not a stop gap. The poor old Hurricane, the backbone of Fighter Command in 1939/40 really does get a bad revisionist press sometimes these days

How easily we forget that both some of the highest scoring individuals and squadrons of those crucial battles of the summer of 1940 flew the Hurricane.

Cheers

Steve
 
Jeff - being 'big' was an unalterable design feature. The P-38E IMO was still a better fighter to go to war with (than F4F, P-39D, P-40E) in the context of the best of 1941 given the ground rules of operational service by December 1941. The P-38 may not have been as good as the Mossie as an air to air fighter at that time so I have no problem with the Mosquito nominated for top three - but it would never significantly improve as a fighter while all its adversaries would grow in capability - including the P-38. The P-40 and F4F and P-39 would never improve vs the P-38 either.
 
A problem with the P-38 vs Mossie comparison is that the P-38 was 'rated' at 8 Gs if I am not mistaken. Getting it to pull 8 Gs might be another story, but turns (and dive pull outs) are never done at a steady "G" loading. As the pilot controls the turn (or pull out) with minor changes of the elevator there can be some rather sizable changes in the G being "pulled" at any given moment. Even racers doing a 'nominal' 2 g 180 degree turn (10 seconds) around a pylon (and not being shot at) could pull as much as 6 gs for a fraction of a second, they could also generate negative G for a fraction of second as they relaxed the stick and opened the turn as speed bleed off.

I could be wrong but I don't believe the Mosquito was built to take the high G loadings of a day fighter. Night fighters seldom, if ever, maneuvered like day fighters.
 
I will agree that the P-38 had the potential in spades. I haven't seen enough evidence that it was the best in 1941.
HOWEVER, It still all depends on "WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT YOU NEED THE PARTICULAR FIGHTER TO DO!"

If we (the group here) are based in Britain in December 1941 and facing the likelihood of German bombers in force coming across the channel in greater force than they had a year earlier, I would invest in all the P-38s and Spitfires I could get. I would start a mass program of training pilots in multi-engine aircraft.

Then again there is the MTO, PTO and Easter Front to consider.
 
Uh, I was using the Mosquito and its performance as an example of why the P-38, even with its excellent performance on paper, may not be a true contender in 1941.

The biggest problem with the Mosquito being included as candidate is that AFAIK the first fighter version did not enter service until May 1942. So It doesn't count here.
 
I wonder if using process of elimination might make this easier. I eliminated the MiG-3 because it may have good higher altitude performance but it took forever to get there. I eliminated the I-16 type 24-29 because they were just too slow to contend. All the others could dictate the terms of combat. CW-21: under gunned and way to fragile. P-35: Underpowered and too slow.
Buffalo: Too slow and not all that rugged. P-36/Hawk 75: Just too slow (enter P-40). LaGG-3: Even if all the bugs could be worked out in 1941, it was just too underpowered. P-24 and MB-151 way to underpowered.

F4F-3
P-38E
Hurricane IIb
Yak-1
Whirlwind
P-40D (P-40E with added weight a little too underpowered to make top 3)
Tomahawk (P-40B/C), I have read that this model was more of a pilots A/C than the Kittyhawk.
IK-3 (Supposedly could outturned the Hurricane. It had a slightly higher wing loading so maybe it had a faster roll rate.?)
P-39D

Does anyone have any climb rate / time to climb information on the IK-3? All I could come up with is 16,400 ft./6.9 minutes. I am close to eliminating this because of its lack of speed 261 mph./S.L. 327 mph./17,715 ft. Its limited firepower (only 60 rds. of 20mm ammunition + 2 x 7.92 mm). Range: 310 mls.
 
Last edited:

The P-38 did just fine in the MTO/PTO - would have done OK in East due to multiple role and heavy firepower. I prefer the P-51, step by step and model change by model change and it was only a month or so being out of phase. The P-51A and A-36 had far superior performance except for climb. Range about equal but the 51 would have more limitations performing escort above 20,000 feet in the 1943 timeframe vs the P-38F/G and H.

But for the cross section of operations by the Allies the P-51A and up-engined Mark IA would have been superior from 20,000 feet to SL than the P-40, F4F, P-39 and the P-38 - other than high altitude escort in the case of the P-38. The P-38 high altitude engine failures makes even that as a questionable advantage.

But remember, even for the ETO it may have been better for a slightly less performer that was reliable in the P-51A, that could go far deeper than the P-47, in numbers better than the aborting P-38s (because of the massive intercooler/turbo problems of every P-38 prior to the P-38J showing up March 1944). I am not saying the individual, operating without engine problems, P-38H would not be superior to the 51A at 25K, but - if two to three FG's were equipped in ETO in July/August 1943 instead of the RAF (Mustang II's) and 311FG in India had been escorting 8th AF maybe Schweinfurt and Regensburg and Munster would not have been near as bad. P-51 losses would have been higher than P-51B's but the day of the un molested Me 110s and 410s would have been over far earlier than march 1944 and it would have carved out some pieces of the 109 and 190 JG's -IMO-
 
Last edited:
Bill
I tend agree with you. That is a what if that would be very interesting to know the answer.

After my last post I took a look at the contenders still left and it was all clear to me in a murky kind of way. If I had to limit my choices to build a fighter force. I would take the following three:

Spitfire Vb: Air superiority.
F4F-3: Carrier duty. (Best suited from a flight deck of the group).
P-38E: Interception duties. (It would not have to mix it 1 on 1 with fighters. All it would have to do is catch the intruders, get above and dive through.)

IF the Spitfire did not exist then we would be traveling in the land of "WHAT IT" and I would have tried to put the Merlin 45 instead of the Allison into the P-36. Or left the high altitude supercharger in the P-39.

All the best, Jeff
 
Shortround6 said:
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Mosquito was built to take the high G loadings of a day fighter. Night fighters seldom, if ever, maneuvered like day fighters.
Click to expand...
The Mosquito was designed, and built, as an unarmed bomber, never a fighter; it was pressed into service as a nightfighter, and eventually became a fighter-bomber. It didn't enter service (as a bomber) until November 1941, and nightfighters did not become operational until April 1942.
 
Thank you.
Nothing against the Mosquito, it was a fine airplane and did a number of jobs very well indeed.
In these forums however it tends to get compared to the P-38 and it seems that many people forget that it as NOT designed to be a day fighter.
The P-38 could not do some of the jobs the Mosquito did as well as the Mosquito but it is doubtful the Mosquito could have done the P-38s primary job.

Just because both airplanes are small twins (compared to a Wellington or B-25) doesn't mean they were interchangeable.
 
CORSNING said:
IF the Spitfire did not exist then we would be traveling in the land of "WHAT IT" and I would have tried to put the Merlin 45 instead of the Allison into the P-36. Or left the high altitude supercharger in the P-39.
Click to expand...

Merlin 45 in a P-36 is called a P-40F (P-40F did have an extra gear on the supercharger for even better low altitude performance though.)

Leaving the high altitude supercharger in the P-39 gets you a plane that wouldn't perform anywhere. 40mph slower at the low altitudes and high altitude performance is highly suspect due to a very doubtful inter-cooler set up.

The much bally-hooed 390mph at 20,000ft never happened.
The plane was never cleared to use more than 2600rpm with the original drive shaft set up, Drive shaft was replaced after the wind tunnel work that lead to the turbos removal.
Radiators and oil coolers (and ducts) went where the turbo had been in order to solve chronic cooling problems with the original locations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
ww2 propeller crash biggin hill 1941
Replies
3
Views
492
stuart
S
FW190D-9 vs Allied fighters
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
10K
Demopan78
Top of the World (1955)
Replies
8
Views
1K
special ed
S
S
Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.
31 32 33
Replies
647
Views
38K
Thumpalumpacus
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
337
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register