Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

wmaxt · Sep 24, 2005

Monkeysee1 said:
The P38 suffered too many mechanical problems.

The 8th AF lost 451 P-38s total in the ETO. On further examination the 451 presents Every P-38 lost to the 8th, it does not include the losses of the 9th AF in the ETO. The problems were
1, Lack of proper support (the first P-51s suffered too but politics focused on the P-38).
2, Improper operating procedures.
3, Bad fuel.
4, Green pilots

The real problems with the early P-38s themselves.
1, Cold cockpits (helped by improper flying technics)
2, Slow roll rates
3, Compressibility (if over 20,000ft)

were accepted by the pilots and were by March '44 eradicated.

Except for faster cruise the J-25 and L P-38s were better in every other way than the P-51 performance wise.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 24, 2005

I think the P-38 was a much better aircraft but then again I think the P-51 was a propoganda machine.

wmaxt · Sep 24, 2005

A valid point was brought up on the last page. We've been concentrating on the ETO but the F4U-4 was an exceptional multi use fighter, including

Speeds over 440
Heavy armament
Tough
High load of up to 4,000lbs+
Very maneuverable
Radar equiped in +/-6hours
and dare I say it, Every one was carrier capable

The P-38 only exceed its performance in a few areas like acceleration, range, and ceiling.

I still hang with the P-38 but the F4U-4 certainly needs to be considerd.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 24, 2005

Yes but is Speeds over 440, Tough, and Very maneuverable different roles. These are traits or characteristics. What kind of roles could the Corsair due that the P-38, Mossie, or Ju-88 could not do other than Carrier Capable and the Mossie was carrier capable.

wmaxt · Sep 24, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yes but is Speeds over 440, Tough, and Very maneuverable different roles. These are traits or characteristics. What kind of roles could the Corsair due that the P-38, Mossie, or Ju-88 could not do other than Carrier Capable and the Mossie was carrier capable.

Those are traits but still important Top speed, strength, and high maneuverability are critical to doing many of those tasks as well or better than another.

The major thing that, for me, relegates the Mossie to second is that each Mosquito was purpose built - the airframe was versatile, the airplanes were not. The fighter/bomber Mossie could not land on a carrier, the F4U-4 fighter/bomber could.

The same thing was true of the P-38. Had it been desired a PR P-38 could fly photo in the morning and dropped 2 2,000lb bombs that same afternoon (there is no evedence this ever happaned). Most of the equipment and extra fuel of a photo Mossie was in the bombay, it just couldn't happen.

Don't get me wrong they were all great planes and they complimented each other well. The Mossie was great esp at night which with 1 pilot and glowing turbos the P-38 wasn't as good. The main point being that either the Mossie or the P-38 ( the F4U-4 is the best single engine multi-tasker)had extream abilities and could do about anything anyone could think of.

I'd like to see a thread about how many variations of aircraft/abilities have been tried sucessfully on aircraft not so much which plane was best at them. And not just P-38/Mossie we've covered that already.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 24, 2005

I agree with you that those are important traits and I agree that the F4U-4 was one of the best planes ever built but I just dont see how it was more versatile than a Mossie/P-38/Ju-88.

wmaxt · Sep 24, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I agree with you that those are important traits and I agree that the F4U-4 was one of the best planes ever built but I just dont see how it was more versatile than a Mossie/P-38/Ju-88.

I guess, but it deserves an hounorable mention though.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 24, 2005

What different roles could it perform. I can come up with:
Fighter
Night Fighter
Carrier borne Fighter
Recon
Fighter Bomber

I am sure there are more though.

wmaxt · Sep 24, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
What different roles could it perform. I can come up with:
Fighter
Night Fighter
Carrier borne Fighter
Recon
Fighter Bomber

I am sure there are more though.

Sure:

Bomber in every configuration including dive bombing.
Escorts
Recon though this was more limited the Navy had dedicated F4F and F6F photo planes. And on land they had access to P-38 photos.

Like the P-38 and Mossie a lot was mearly the fact that it was not required to do other things so they were not attempted. Had they been required they could have been accomodated. The interior of a F4U was huge and empty it didn't even have a floor until the -5 model, just a 4ft hole beneth the pilot.

They were more flexible or at least more competant at what it did than other single engined aircraft but not quite up to the 38/Mossie level. Even with comparable horse power the extra efficency provided by the extra fan means a lot.

wmaxt

Lightning Guy · Sep 24, 2005

Did you know ... Lockheed drew up the specs for a carrier-based P-38. The navy showed little intereted because of the large size of the Lightning (though it would have been a beautiful match for the Midway-class CVBs) and the use of liquid-cooled engines (which the USN despised).

And don't forget the P-38 was capable of (and did perform) missions such as air ambulance and glider-tug (one USAAF pilot who helped develop glider-towing procdecures thought the P-38 was the best aircraft in the USAAF inventory for that type of mission).

the lancaster kicks ass · Sep 25, 2005

so what if they drew up plans?? i could draw up a plan for a single engined version of the lanc that would be a lightweight long range escort fighter/bomber, doesn't mean it would've worked........

and i suggested the corsair and Fw-190 in the single engine role, i think we should talk about them separately, so have a separate disscussion for the best single engined plane in many roles, the best twin and possibly even the best 3 or 4 engined........

cheddar cheese · Sep 25, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
so what if they drew up plans?? i could draw up a plan for a single engined version of the lanc that would be a lightweight long range escort fighter/bomber, doesn't mean it would've worked........

Designers aint dumb, they're only gonna draw up the plans if theyre fairly sure it will work...waste of time, effort and resources otherwise...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 25, 2005

The P-38 would have been a fine carrier aircraft. Its only setback was its size and it is comparible in size to a Mossie so why the hell not.

cheddar cheese · Sep 25, 2005

Smaller than a Mossie if anything. Its only slightly bigger than the Stuka there was going to be a carrier version of that.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 25, 2005

Yeap I dont see why the P-38 would not have been a good carrier fighter except for maybe its lengthened wing span which could have been folded. I think in the twin engined catagory the winner is still the P-38. Lanc still can not prove otherwise.

Lightning Guy · Sep 25, 2005

The tricycle landing gear would have been very useful for a carrier-based aircraft. THe P-38 also had excellent low-speed handling (no torque or P-factor to worry about). I would have been fine as a carrier-based plane.

You can start a second list for single-engine aircraft if you want. But no single-engined aircraft matched those already being discussed for versatility. A twin has the range and lifting capabilities to be a useful bomber. At the same time, it is fast and agile enouh to compete with fighters.

As far as the Fw-190 is concerned, it was an excellent aircraft. I personally feel it's lack of range hurt it compared to the F4U (at least as far as versatility is concerned).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 25, 2005

That was really the only limiting factor of the Fw-190.

wmaxt · Sep 25, 2005

cheddar cheese said:
Smaller than a Mossie if anything. Its only slightly bigger than the Stuka there was going to be a carrier version of that.

The P-38 and the Mossie are almost exactly the same size, the Mossie has 2 more feet of wing, empty weight is comparible and ~200lbs more max allowable weight (P-38L/ Mossie Mk-XIX).

The P-38 worked fine as a glider tow until the second glider hit the brakes 2/3 of the way down the runway.

Everything they tried on the P-38 worked well, it would probably work fine.

wmaxt

Lightning Guy · Sep 25, 2005

In a recent edition of Flight Journal, Brig. Gen. Robert L. Cardenas described his role in testing gliders.

"Everything was evaluated and critiqued as I towed in C-47s, C-54s, C-60s, B-17s and B-24s. I eventually found the best towplane ever built: the P-38 Lightning. I even towed two gliders from Minnesota to Pine Castle, Florida, non-stop in the P-38 just to prove the concept."

wmaxt · Sep 25, 2005

Lightning Guy said:
In a recent edition of Flight Journal, Brig. Gen. Robert L. Cardenas described his role in testing gliders.

"Everything was evaluated and critiqued as I towed in C-47s, C-54s, C-60s, B-17s and B-24s. I eventually found the best towplane ever built: the P-38 Lightning. I even towed two gliders from Minnesota to Pine Castle, Florida, non-stop in the P-38 just to prove the concept."

Cool, I haven't heard that one before. Thats what 1,200mi?

I haven't heard of anything, so far, that was tried by the P-38 that it didn't do well (except when 1 glider locked his brakes).

wmaxt

Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads