Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

Im not Erich.

davparlr said:

wmaxt,

Very impressive discussions. You certainly know the P-38. I was always a been fan of it and thought it was underrated vs. Europe. Also, I never fully understood why the allison was so berated in the P-51/P-40/p-39 when it seem to work well in the P-38. I guess it had to do with the turbosupercharger. But then, why not use a turbo there?

Due to your information, I have a further respect of the P-38. Not quite enough to overthrow my selection of the P-51. I need to know more info on the P-38 range on internal fuel in the air-air mode as compared to the P-51D. I am sure you must have some data here.

You've been greatly informative. Keep up the good work.

Click to expand...

Dave,

I'm with Adler on this, the P-38G/H models were except for top speed a match for the P-51 due to some limitations I'll explain below. The P-38J/L were just plain better fighters that exceeded the P-51 in all performance areas except
1. cruise speed the P-51 had a ~40mph advantage for a minor decrease in range.
2. The other thing is top speed the P-51D is capable of 437-443mph top speed. High speed for the P-38L is between 430 443mph. So it could have a small advantage there.

The Allisons esp with the turbo was sensitive in regard to fuel octane, originally in Britain the normal fuel was lower than AAF fuel, attempts made at adjusting it were not always successful. added to that the Flight Procedures then in use recommended ~2,300rpm and ~27" boost this allowed the engines to loaf building little heat to warm the pilot, turbo wastegates and oil. Those conditions led to blown engines. Compounding that the intercoolers were designed for 1,200hp max at 1,350hp-1,600hp could lead to detonation and again a blown engine. HOWEVER, Art Hieden and some others listened to their crew chiefs (yep them again!) and NEVER lost an engine in over 325 combat hours. In the P-51/P-39/P-40 they had no supplemental boost for altitudes over ~17,000ft.

On internal fuel only these are POH recommendations
P-38L single engine - 930mi (this assumes cross feed is not working)
P-38L both engines - 1,210mi
P-51D 1,330 with 240gal (This is approx fuel load at drop tank release. ~40 gallons are available with max fuel load. The P-51 had extream handling/cg issues with full fuel in rear tank).

wmaxt

Henk said:

Yes, I agree Erich, but in Europe the P-38 were not very good escort. The P-51 is made such great thing but it were just a fighter and a escort.

Henk

Click to expand...

The P-38 after the fuel problems were corrected did fine in the ETO with a 4:1 loss ratio in air to air combat, against more experienced German pilots in situations where there were normally 5 germans to 1 P-38. The first 3 months there were only 200 P-38s flying escort!

But the first P-38s in the ETO did have very cold cockpits, and engine problems. That many of these problems were from inexperience, that doesn't have anything to do with the P-38, doesn't change the fact that they happened.

You are correct about the P-51 though it did get the job done.

wmaxt

The P-51D did an excellent job for what it did, but I think if it had to fullfill multiple roles such as ground attack it would not have been as well.

Sorry gents, still not persuaded. I tried to do some research on the internet and books (pilots opinions, German Pilots opinions, bomber missions supported by fighters, planes shot down, etc.). Got a headache. Some pilots who flew both had both sides, seems more perfered P-51. Read about the argument that he P-38 was held back because of politics. That is hard to swallow when losses in '43 was 15% and unsustainable. Bomber research (which may be affected by popular opinion) indicated that P-38 and P-47 escorts started toward end of 43 but didn't go downtown Berlin. Also states, things turned around when P-51s arrived. General consensus of military historians (history channel, many books etc. seem to perfer P-51). To me this make it the "heavyweight champion" and as such, a pretender to the throne must have overpowering evidence, which seems to be missing.

Top speed is not a tremendous asset although it adds to energy level. The P-51H seems to claim the title of fastest prop plane flown in WWII with a top speed of 487 mph but was not perfered over the D during the Korean War due to the Ds more robust build.

I am both a pilot and a mathematician. I know both pilot opinion and statistics often don't tell the whole story (pilot opinion of user aircraft certainly carries a lot of weight). However, the following stats seems to talk a lot by themselves.

The P-51, with less that one third the sorties of the P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-40 (P-40 and P-39 made up a small sortie number) destroyed almost as many ETO airborne kills as all those put together (4950 to 5348) and had more ground a/c destroyed (4131 to 4009). The P-38 had only half the sorties (but only claimed about a third airborne kills and an insignificant numer of ground a/c destroyed. That is a impressive record for the P-51.

When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51. When one considers the expertise and experience of those selecting, that also says a lot.

I read an article that made an argument that a best fighter could not be selected because of the varibles. That is my position, it just seems the P-51 stood out a bit more. But it did not warrant out shinning other types that warranted an equal billing.

My statistics are from a book "American Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner. I don't know too much about the author but the book seems pretty good.

I think the P-51D is a good obvious choice but I think that there are plenty of good arguments out there against the P-51D. I just think that if you put as many P-38s in the air at the same time, you are going to get the same results.

I agree Adler, the same or better results.

davparlr said:

When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51.

Click to expand...

That was more economics than anything else - the P-51 was cheaper to operate and the spares supply was huge, besides the "H" model was also being deployed...

I agree about the cost of operation. The debate of two verses one engine goes on today. Navy liked two for reliability (something about flying long distances over water and you know those sharks are down there) although they are getting one on the F-35. AF puts two in for performance but one for cost (F-15/F-22) vs. (F-16/F-35).

Oh, by the way the P-47 loss rate was amazing. Half that of the P-38 and almost half that of the P-51. Quite incredible. I suspect the P-47 was used much more in the more deadly air-to-ground role than the P-51.

FLYBOYJ said:

That was more economics than anything else - the P-51 was cheaper to operate and the spares supply was huge, besides the "H" model was also being deployed...

Click to expand...

I suspect that much of the AF "brass" saw that while the P51 wasnt the best in any single catagory, it was "good enough" in many of them. like you said, In the macro-economic sense of things (I love that word, heheheh) it was cheaper to operate.

syscom3 said:

I suspect that much of the AF "brass" saw that while the P51 wasnt the best in any single catagory, it was "good enough" in many of them. like you said, In the macro-economic sense of things (I love that word, heheheh) it was cheaper to operate.

Click to expand...

Also remember about the required multi engine training required to maintain proficiency....

davparlr said:

Sorry gents, still not persuaded. I tried to do some research on the internet and books (pilots opinions, German Pilots opinions, bomber missions supported by fighters, planes shot down, etc.). Got a headache. Some pilots who flew both had both sides, seems more perfered P-51. Read about the argument that he P-38 was held back because of politics. That is hard to swallow when losses in '43 was 15% and unsustainable. Bomber research (which may be affected by popular opinion) indicated that P-38 and P-47 escorts started toward end of 43 but didn't go downtown Berlin. Also states, things turned around when P-51s arrived. General consensus of military historians (history channel, many books etc. seem to perfer P-51). To me this make it the "heavyweight champion" and as such, a pretender to the throne must have overpowering evidence, which seems to be missing.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, however you night also think about these variables.

First here is a web thread from several years ago and is pretty accurate.
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

It's a fact the P-38 was sent to Africa in early '43 from the ETO by the 8th AF
It wasn't "Held Back" though reluctently accepted is more the fact. Also I don't feel it was actively hindered, however it was not "embraced either" (because they didn't belive in escorts). Most of the problems were due to the learning curve that involved all aspects of operations
1. Flight procedures
2. Fuel
3. Parts, maintenance facilities (All different when the P-51 arrived)
4. Green Pilots
5. Combat Tactics
The P-38 had some real problems to
1. No cockpit heat, part cruise procedures a lot Lockheed.
2. Engine problems almost exclusively cruise procedures, no problems in Alaska in worse conditions.
3. Intercoolers to small, but climb was still better than P-51 and speed over 400mph.

The P-38 groups got that 15% to 4/5% 80% of which was Flack. The first two months of P-51 service had a 30% abort rate the same as the P-38 but as feb, '44 came along most of those problems were solved. Also J models were more numerous eliminating the intercooler problems and by early summer the J-25 and L models cured the compressability (though technics had already cured that one), cockpit heat and other minor stuff. The decision to drop the P-38 was logistical, the A-36, P-39, P-40 had left the theater and by summer '44 the P-38 were the least numerous fighter and the only Allison fighter left, so Doolittle dropped It. Doolittle confirmed this. Doolittle also stated for Warren Bodies book on the P-38, That the P-38 was among the top tow or three fighters in WWII and that the P-51 and P-47 wouldn't have done any better under the same circumstances.

The P-38s accomplishments have been ignored in the ETO by the 8th AF is more the truth.

The 55th FG P-38s were over Berlin on March 5, '44 the first AAF Escort fighter to do so. BTW, the P-38s were also based in places like Kings Cliff 80-100 miles from the British coast.

More pilots flew the P-51, also many pilots that flew those long missions in early P-38 with now cockpit heat liked the Mustang even many of those liked the P-38 for ACM. like Zemke, Preddy,and Heiden just plain thought it was a lot better. In another thread a P-51 pilot said, to use a P-51 against a P-38 you have to start a Lot higher and faster to have a chance.

daveprlr said:

Top speed is not a tremendous asset although it adds to energy level. The P-51H seems to claim the title of fastest prop plane flown in WWII with a top speed of 487 mph but was not perfered over the D during the Korean War due to the Ds more robust build.

I am both a pilot and a mathematician. I know both pilot opinion and statistics often don't tell the whole story (pilot opinion of user aircraft certainly carries a lot of weight). However, the following stats seems to talk a lot by themselves.

The P-51, with less that one third the sorties of the P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-40 (P-40 and P-39 made up a small sortie number) destroyed almost as many ETO airborne kills as all those put together (4950 to 5348) and had more ground a/c destroyed (4131 to 4009). The P-38 had only half the sorties (but only claimed about a third airborne kills and an insignificant numer of ground a/c destroyed. That is a impressive record for the P-51.

Click to expand...

That first statement is true.

First once the major bombing started the greatest percentage of German fighters were after the bombers. Second, The P-38 escorted almost exclusively in "Close Escort" 2,500ft max from the bombers, to assess the effect of that on kills, check out the Tuskeege Airmen their highest ace had 5 kills but they never lost a bomber.

The P-39/40 didn't have 20,000 sorties together and no escort.
The P-47A/B/C flew normaly uncontested sorties fron Britian to mid France/German border the whole bomber period, The D/Ms started escorting in summer '44, probably 100,000 escort hours and another 50.000/75,000hrs ground support.
The P-38 flew 127,000 sorties about 30/40% of those were ground support so were closer to 60% to 70% of the sorties the P-51 had for those kills which makes them about even and the P-38 flew in worse odds and less experianced pilots.

daveparlr said:

When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51. When one considers the expertise and experience of those selecting, that also says a lot.

I read an article that made an argument that a best fighter could not be selected because of the varibles. That is my position, it just seems the P-51 stood out a bit more. But it did not warrant out shinning other types that warranted an equal billing.

My statistics are from a book "American Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner. I don't know too much about the author but the book seems pretty good.

Click to expand...

When the AAF went to the P-51 first and P-47 second, it was that the P-51 could do a lot of things OK and it was the cheapest and very numerous (suppling spares). The P-38 was expensive, it went. Look at the attitudes of the time pilots were cheap and the US had a Huge debt.

I mostly agree with that statement. The P-38 is one of those that deserve more than it gets. Think about this, The P-38 is the major plane that earned air superiority in every theater (with the P-51 in the ETO) the AAF flew. It always started on the short end of experiance and numbers and was never turned back! The P-51 was in the Pacific from mid '43, it was more numerous starting DEC.'44 than the P-38, it didn't do anything noteable.

There are a lot of numbers out there and if your a mathematician you know the importance of context The 8th AF lost 451 P-38s. If you go by the loss numbers that are commonly used you will find they are more than 3,000 more aircraft lost than the AAF records an ~40% difference. The P-51 got credit in the ETO the others didn't.

wmaxt

Overall, great arguments in support of the P-38. You certainly have made your point that the P-38 was an underrated aircraft (including me, although I was reluctantly doing so, since I always liked the P-38, and thought it was somewhat underrated).

I suspect the selection of the P-51 to continue after the war was
1) Low operating cost which is major since the budgets were slashed after the war.
2) Great airplane with good capabilities with little faults.
3) Total quantity available?
4) Large quanity of P-51 pilots to vote for their plane.

The P-47, P-51, and P-38 were outstanding aircraft that stood up well to what ever was thrown at them. And all should be given equal credit for their defense of our freedom. We were fortunate to have such designer and engineers a such men who flew them.

davparlr said:

Overall, great arguments in support of the P-38. You certainly have made your point that the P-38 was an underrated aircraft (including me, although I was reluctantly doing so, since I always liked the P-38, and thought it was somewhat underrated).

I suspect the selection of the P-51 to continue after the war was
1) Low operating cost which is major since the budgets were slashed after the war.
2) Great airplane with good capabilities with little faults.
3) Total quantity available?
4) Large quanity of P-51 pilots to vote for their plane.

The P-47, P-51, and P-38 were outstanding aircraft that stood up well to what ever was thrown at them. And all should be given equal credit for their defense of our freedom. We were fortunate to have such designer and engineers a such men who flew them.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Cost was certainly an issue. The P-51 was an excellent escort fighter but a vulnerable lightweight in other capacities. As a transition fighter for jets it was as good as any of the others.
A lot of them went to D-M for storage/sale/spares but a lot were also disposed of, there is supposed to be several hundred buried near Boise, Id, where I live.
I don't really think the Pilots had much say in it.

I don't know if it was really equal but they all contributed as did the P-40.

wmaxt

first how can anyone compare 38 to the mossie? different types for different roles with the allies any role could be put on any plane the allies decided so there for when one say different roles for the 38 or the mossies it just depend on what the combat needs were not the type persay but tring to dog fight with a mossies is a little hard to understand same with the other types except the 38 so the 38 wins my vote

mosquitoman said:

For me it has to be the deHavilland Mosquito, name a job it couldn't do
(BTW, I'm a bit biased as it's my favourite plane)

Click to expand...

Hello Mosquitoman:
I'm interested in all the WW2 Warbirds but lately I have the
famous "Wooden Wonder" Mosquito fighter-bomber in my thoughts.
(Reading up on it and building a model of it.) I read where it
was built of plywood and BALSA wood. Is this all correct? (I
can see the plywood used for body and wings and the balsa may
have been used inside glued to corners,ect. to add strength?)
Casine glue was used and came apart in 10 or 12 years ? because
modern glues were not yet invented?

Thanks for any reply.

lonestarman63 said:

first how can anyone compare 38 to the mossie? different types for different roles with the allies any role could be put on any plane the allies decided so there for when one say different roles for the 38 or the mossies it just depend on what the combat needs were not the type persay but tring to dog fight with a mossies is a little hard to understand same with the other types except the 38 so the 38 wins my vote

Click to expand...

Actually its pretty easy because they could each do all of the same roles. I do agree though that it is kind of wiered because one was more of a bomber and the other more of a fighter.

The overall success of an airframe is related to its longevity. Anyone else thinking Corsair in this? Fighter and attack aircraft even after the introduction of jets (Korea), but more ordnance load than the F-51.

Ron, yes the first glue used was Casein glue (based on a milk protein).

But in the tropics (CBI) this did not hold up in the humid climate so they switched to a Urea formaldehyde glue.

The balsa was a core between the inner and outer layer of plywood. Where re-enforcement was required they used wood, not balsa.

Here is a site on Cdn production at Milton Ont (Toronto), http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000192

There are books put out by Squadron/Signal. They are cheap ie $$$ wise.

A good site on the Mosquito, http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html

Just like to put in my vote for the Mossie as the best aircraft in many different roles, norrowly pipping the JU-88 and then the P-38 in the all around ability stakes.

It performed in a multiplicity of roles, including heavy fighter, night fighter, unarmed bomber, pathfinder, search and rescue, high and low altitude reconnisance, maratime strike, torpedo bomber, fighter-bomber and spoofing/jamming roles. While it wasn't a dayfighter, that is about the only role that the Mosquito didn't perform.

Someone posted earlier that the representative speed of a Mk VI Mossie was 362 mph. This is incorrect. A Mk VI Series II Fighter-Bomber Mosquito (which was the most common fighter-bomber mark) could do 378-380mph, depending on which RAF trials you look at. 362 mph would be about right for a Mk IV bomber with a Highball anti-ship bouncing bomb installation. RAF trials clearly state that the FB Mosquito was some 5-10mph faster than the Spitfire V at all heights. Later versions with Merlin 25s were up to 25-30mph faster at below 10,000 feet, and had notable sucess chasing down V1 flying bombs

The initial bomber variant was the Mk IV, which was capable of 385mph loaded, but without the external fuel tanks. Range with 1000 lbs carried internally and external fuel tanks was 2050 miles.

The first night fighters (NF Mk IIs) were capable of around 370mph. Later, most night fighters (mks XIII, XIX)recieved paddle-bladed props which boosted speeds up to around 395mph. They were also known to use nitrous-oxide boost for periods of up to 10 minutes, adding up 30mph above 18,000 feet and 17 mph at low altitude. RAF trials with a NF XIX with Merlin 25s list 377mph at 2000-2000 feet without N2O and 394 mph with N20.

In mid 1943, the second generation of Mosquitos was deployed in photo-recon, bomber and night fighter variants. Fitted with 2 stage Merlins, they were significantly faster and better at high altitude than the earlier versions fitted with single stage engines. The most produced bomber mark, the Mk. XVI, was capable of around 408 mph fully loaded with a 4000lbs bomb load, and 419 mph after it had dropped the load. It was introduced in January, 1944. The earlier B Mk IX had similar performance, but no pressurised cockpit, so didn't operate above 30,000 feet much and was only built in small numbers.

The most common night fighter was the NF. Mk XXX, which began service in April, 1944. It was capable of 425 mph at altitude.