B-29 Escort: P-38, P-47N or P-51H ? (1 Viewer)

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

Why?

RAF Mosquitos and Luftwaffe Me-110s got by just fine without a huge radome on their night fighter variants.

From the NFXVII the Mosquito was eqipped with the universal nose which would allow the fitment of the MkIX (British) or MkX (American SCR720) radars. The SCR720 was fitted to P-61s.

The F7F night fighter used a smaller, presumably less capable, radar.

The F7F was also later in timing than the P-61.

Would have been interesting to compare the later turbocharged P-61C using the P-61E/F-15 cockpit canopy with the F7F.
 
Here is a picture and discription of the SCR720 radar.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SCR-720 Airborne Radar

Please note that this radar WAS NOT what the P-61 was designed around. Radar was making faster progress than air frames in WW II but when the P-61 was designed the nobody really knew what radar or how big and heavy it would be used when the P-61 went into service. Building too small a plane to hold the 'future' radar would have been a bigger mistake than building too big a plane.

The dome on the P=61 allowed the dish to turn 180 degrees which allowed for a much larger area of the sky to swept than the older fixed antennaes used on some older night fighters.
 
As great as the P-47N, and P-51H were, I still say the comfort of LONG overwater flights in a twin engine is something that is more important. Be it P-38 or an adaptation of the F7F, either one would be better suited. I have also heard pilots say that one of the biggest causes of phatigue in a P-51 was that growling Merlin. A P-82 is at least a twin, I wonder if they were as "raspy sounding" as the Merlin powered Mustang? The Tigercat would have the silky smooth radials to keep you nice a cozy!
 
Why?

RAF Mosquitos and Luftwaffe Me-110s got by just fine without a huge radome on their night fighter variants.
When I said the fuselage was thin, I mean really thin, thinner than the F6F/F4U, think P-51 thin. The Mosquito fuselage, which housed the same radar as the P-61, was much bigger than the F7F and I don't think the Bf-110 used a rotating dish antenna. The follow-on purpose built night fighters, the F-89 and F3D were large aircraft to accommodate better and bigger radars.
 
The F7F used the same radar as the later wing pods on the F4U and F6F, it scanned a 120 degrees cone compared to the 50 degree up, 20 degree down but 180 degree lateral pattern of the SCR-720. Range of the smaller radar is sometimes given as 10,000yds against bombers (twins?) vs 17,000yds for the SCR-720. SCR-720 also had two 5in CRT displays for the operator displaying different information and a 3in CRT display for the pilot. The AN/APS- 6 had one 3in CRT display, at least for the single seaters, I don't know if the F7F had duplicate displays.
 
Readie, the P-51 was called "The Flying Cadillac", but I believe it was because it was so smooth to fly and didn't have much to do with comfort.

I agree that I would take the P-47N when it comes to room and comfort for extra long flights.

The P-47 turbo supercharger quietened the engine enormously was compared to the P-51. The P-51 engine noise was extremely exhausting on long pacific missions.

The P-47N 'wet wing' was at no range disadvantage to the P-51.
 
The P-47 turbo supercharger quietened the engine enormously was compared to the P-51. The P-51 engine noise was extremely exhausting on long pacific missions.

The P-47N 'wet wing' was at no range disadvantage to the P-51.

Cadillacs are known for being roomy, comfortable, smooth riding, and quiet. Seems to me little Jim got it wrong; the P-47 was "the Cadillac of the sky" not the P-51.

The P-47N has greater range than the P-51D/K/H. I think "wet wing" is a misnomer. It had wing tanks in addition to the fuselage tank.
 
The P-47 turbo supercharger quietened the engine enormously was compared to the P-51. The P-51 engine noise was extremely exhausting on long pacific missions.
Couldn't the same be said for the turbocharged P-38?
 
Interesting discussion. I read an account for a pilot who flew both the 47 and the 51 and he said the 47 was definitely more comfortable. He also believed it more survivable to combat damage and brought the interesting point that if you had to ditch it in the sea, which would certainly be a possibility when escorting B-29's to Japan, that the P-47 would be safer to ditch because it didn't have the ventral air scoop to catch the water when you tried to put it down. I had never heard of that before. Does anyone know if the P-51 is difficult to ditch in the water? Another question, was the P-51H used in the war? I thought it wasn't available until later. So I don't know if the question makes sense, comparing a plane that was available to one that wasn't.

As for the P-38, the whole reason it didn't have a great success in Europe is because it had problems operating at altitude, especially keeping the pilot warm. In the PTO, altitudes were much lower and heating the cockpit was not an issue. If the P-38 were used to escort the B-29 the altitudes would as great or greater than those in Europe. The later models of the 38 may have gotten this problem sorted out, I don't know.
 
P-51 deadly in ditching - SOP was to bail out.

IMO P-38 best choice because of T/E - no real high altitude issues with J/L models

Probably prefer P-82 if available - high performance escort/two pilots
 
P-51 deadly in ditching - SOP was to bail out.

IMO P-38 best choice because of T/E - no real high altitude issues with J/L models

Probably prefer P-82 if available - high performance escort/two pilots

I am not sure, but IIRC the ditching characteristics of the P-38 were also poor in comparison to the P-47. I wonder if for much of time during these very long missions the possibility of a P-38 limping home on one engine was low. Is the average reliability of one R-2800 on a P-47 greater than two V-1710s on a P-38?
 
The P-38 was not a good airplane to ditch either. In the -1 it states to ditch as a last resort.

As far as single engine reliability - excellent. It will cruise up to 225 mph and climb above 20K on one engine, again according to the -1. I believe earlier P-38s had one generator in the left engine so if that engine was lost you lost airframe electrical power in 30 minutes. The -1 also states to operate the good engine at 2600 RPM, 35" manifold pressure and maintain 150 to 200 mph. P-38 reliability on one engine was no different than any other single engine aircraft operating the same engine.

The R2800 is legendary for its toughness and ability to operate damaged. Any inline engine with a liquid cooling system is a liability, however when overflying large bodies of water, two engines are always better than one.
 
Intuitively two engines should be better for long oceanic flights. So should four be than three and three than two. But reliability is determined by more than the number of engines an aircraft has or we would not have modern twin engined airliners certified for trans-oceanic flights. Furthermore the most famous trans-oceanic flight was made in a single engine aircraft by a pilot who specifically choose not to use a multi-engine aircraft because of reliability concerns. With regard to the P-38 would the frequency of needing to limp home on one engine be a greater liability than the benefit of possibly being able too? Are there any accurate statistics about this? If two engines are so much better than one for flight over the sea, why has the USN from the beginning of the jet age adopted any single engine fighters?
 
Modern Jet engines are much more reliable than WW II Piston engines.

At the time Lindbergh made his flight they were just switching from valve gear (rocker arms,etc) lubricated by grease fittings to being lubricated by the engine oil. having to put the grease gun on the valve gear in mid-flight was a real bummer :)

While engine overhaul life is not reliability (chances of break down on any one flight) engine overhaul life was usually under 100 hours in the 20s and could be under 40 hours for some engines.

The US Navy has used a number of single engine jets. The Grumman F9F Panthers/Cougars and F-11F Tigers, F8 Crusader, F4D Skyray, the F3H Demon and the A-4 Skyhawk and others

These have been matched by the twin engined McDonnell F2H Banshee, , F7U Cutlass, Douglas F3D and more.
 
With regard to the P-38 would the frequency of needing to limp home on one engine be a greater liability than the benefit of possibly being able too? Are there any accurate statistics about this? If two engines are so much better than one for flight over the sea, why has the USN from the beginning of the jet age adopted any single engine fighters?

To this I would say, and this would be with any twin. As I lumber along and can see only water, I wouldn't be able to see statistics, but I would be able to see those two props turning. I'm looking more at the psychological factor of having in the back of your mind, that you know you have a 2nd engine if you lose one.
 
Lets not forget our highest scoring pilots, Bong and McGuire, used P-38s. I would have to go with the P-38, mostly cause I can't swim :p ALSO, the P-38 has no critical engine and twin rudders. You have positive airflow over the rudders no matter which engine quits. The Mustang did it's job admirably albeit maybe not comfortably. I would be very nervous flying behind a Merlin over all that water. VMC for most WWII types is between 125 and 145mph, which gives a safe margin in single engine cruise. For example, the VMC of a B-25 is 145mph, with an engine feathered you can still cruise at 160-170mph.

jim
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back