Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....

lesofprimus said:

Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....

Click to expand...

You are right there Les. With all of the Allied Fightbombers and ground attack planes from the West and East all closing in on Germany, LW had alot of chances to fight at lower levels as well. Of course when LW intercepted Allied bombers they were way up high, but other than that there was still combat going on well below. Even when Allies attacked German airbases LW would get into fights there to, protecting their own bases as well as ME262 bases.

Your thoughts have merrit a hit and run from a higher altitude is not only the best method in all reality it was the most effective.

I will stand on my earlier post - the P-38 on its dogfighting ability deserves to be with the 190 and Spit. The P-38 was also one of the very best when it came to climb, altitude ability (Js and Ls still had full power at 30k where the Spit/190/P-51 had lost as much as half), and speed. Also as I pointed out above even Galland himself in a 190D couldn't shake a P-38. The P-38 was at least a match.

As to the P-51, the P-38 not only could out fly it, a quote from a P-51 pilot to his nephew was 'to fight one (P-38 ) you (P-51) had to start out a lot faster and higher to have a chance'. Performance wise the comtemporary P-38J-25/Ls
Flew higher - 44,000ft to 40,000ft (Sometimes rated at 41,000ft)
Climed 20% faster 7min to 20,000ft to 9 to 20,000 in METO power
were as fast/slightly faster
Accelerated faster 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft to 2.2mph/sec
Out maneuvered
carried more in Fighter Bomber roll reportedly 5,200lbs (official rating 4,000lbs) to the P-51s 2,000lbs
Heaver firepower that was housed in the center of the aircraft and was effective at twice the range of the P-51.
The longest fighter mission of WWII was by the P-38 at 2,300mi.

The P-51 was cheaper, easier to train in, easier to maintain and had a faster cruise speed if ultimate range was not required. Those are the advantages of the P-51 over the P-38.

wmaxt[/quote]

Was the P-38 that much manuverable than the P-51?

From wikepedia:The Lightning proved surprisingly maneuverable at low altitudes, mostly due to very docile low-speed stall characteristics. The contra-rotating props had the benefit of eliminating the effects of engine torque, and on occasion a Lightning could even out-turn smaller fighters. However, maneuverability wasn't its strong suit, its major virtue in combat being a "terrific zoom climb" that would leave pursuers in the dust.

On ocasion. Also other websites about world war II aircraft seem to confirm that the lighting wasn't really the most manuverable aircraft out there. Sure, in the hands of an expieranced pilot it could outmanuver a single engine plane like the mustang, but not in the hands of an inexperianced fighting pilot. Technichly the mustang was more manuverable. It was at best a match with the mustang for manuverability, but not generally superior.

Besides, several mustang pilots downed FW's in one on one dog fights too just like that one P-38 pilot did. I don't think it was that much harder for them.

What one pilot had to say about the mustang.

was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.

The only reason the Mustang was so successful was the fact that it had the numerical superiority. The aircraft itself was overrated and nothing speacial.

For the newer members....

I posted this before...

Here is a photo of my old neighbor Mike Alba, courtesy of "Little Friends."



Mike was with the 338th Fighter Squadron, 55th Fighter Group, 8th Ar Force. He flew P-38s and P-51s in combat. Prior to going over seas Mike logged several hundred hours in the P-38 so he had a good handle on the idiosyncrasies of the aircraft. During his time in Europe Mike told me he actually preferred the P-38. He did confirm the heating problems but said the -38 was a better gun platform and way a way more stable aircraft to fly. He went on to tell me that the P-51 was faster and could be a bit "squirly." He first flew converted P-51Cs that didn't have the fin in front of the vertical stabilizer. He said when the "Ds" arrived there was an improvement.

Mike mentioned that when the 8AF fighter command started going on the deck to hunt down the Luftwaffe on the ground he lost half of his squadron and he sited the P-51 went down easy because of its liquid cooled engine. Mike went on to say that at that time many of his surviving squadron members wished they still had their P-38s....

As a side note, Mike finished the war with 3 1/2 kills, all in the P-51. He stayed in the AF after WW2 and assisted many Central and South American Air Forces in setting up combat training schools, Mike was Mexican and spoke Spanish fluently. Mike spent several years in Honduras and trained a guy named Fernando Soto - this guy became the "Top Gun" of the 1969 El Salvador/ Honduras "Soccer War."

But for the Lightning being a faster plane also makes me wonder. On wikipedia they say the P-51 had a maximum speed of 437 mph and the P-38 had one of 414 mph. Unless I'm mistaken the Lighting didn't beat it in speed. Also it sounds like the P-51 could only fly a 100 miles less.

With WEP P-38L's could do over 440mph.

I like the lightning. I just wasn't that sure if it was superior to the P-51 in taking down a WF 190. I know it did great with the Japanese planes. I'm sure it could do it well and in a head on fight the P-38 had more powerful guns to wipe you out. It's just I still kind of wonder how much more maneuverable in a dogfight it was.

Anyway, here is the story of one on one dogfight of a P-51. I wish I had it in the pilots own words.

A flight of P-51s from the 353rd Fighter Squadron, operating out of Criqueville, France, was patrolling the skies over Berriere on 29 June, 1944. Newcomer 1st Lt. Kenneth Dahlberg was flying "Beantown Banshee", a P-51B "borrowed" from another 353rd pilot. Shortly after 1400 hours, they encountered a large number of yellow-nosed Focke-Wulf 190s. As the two formations meshed into one swirling mass of Mustangs and Focke-Wulfs, a '190 curved in on the tail of Dahlberg's flight leader. Dahlberg slid in behind the black-crossed figher and fired a burst that caused the German to break off. Dahlberg stayed with his opponent in a twisting, turning combat, each trying to maneuver into a position to get a hit as they spiralled down to almost treetop level. Finally Dahlberg scored a crucial burst and the Focke-Wulf dove into the ground. Lt. Dahlberg later described the German pilot as "my most formidable air opponent of the war".

The German pilot may have come from the excellent fighter Unit JG 26.


Another reason the P-38 wasn't liked as well in Europe as a bomber escort is this from wikipedia:

A growing need for long-range escort fighters in Northwest Europe to protect heavy bomber operations resulted in four groups of Lightnings being deployed to the 8th Air Force in 1943-44. Although the P-38 gained a reputation with the Luftwaffe as the "fork-tailed devil", its performance at frigid high altitudes was disappointing and it proved difficult to maintain. By September 1944 all the Lightning groups in the 8th Air Force had converted to the P-51.

I use Wikipedia as well sometimes, however it is not the best source for material.

Good post up there FBJ.

Agreed. The nickname "the fork-tailed devil" is a myth.

Everyone believes it though.

The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.

thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain.

Click to expand...

Huh??? No it wasnt....

spitfire1940 said:

The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.

Click to expand...

Disagree with you to an extent. It was not way better than the Bf-109 and it was an equal to the Fw-190D.

The Hawker Hurricane was I admit not only used as a bomber destroyer but when the RAF used the big wing tactics towards the end of the battle of Britain the spitfires task was to break up the bomber formations attracting the escorting ME109 to tangle with then as the superior performance of the spitfire enabled them to do this. The bomber waves would now tangle with Hurricanes sent up to destroy them obviously they met with fighter escort but the RAF after the battle of France became aware of the hurricanes weakness in air to air with the faster Me109's if anybody doubt this I can recommend a few literary references to check this!
There is no argument that the hurricane was also used in the fighter to fighter role but after the early lessons stated the RAF changed tactics to great effect.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

spitfire1940 said:

The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.

Click to expand...

Disagree with you to an extent. It was not way better than the Bf-109 and it was an equal to the Fw-190D.

Click to expand...

Someone on this site said the Me-109 itself was really no good unless flown by a capable pilot, Well with that said the Hurricane was a much simpler plane to fly, newly trained pilots had a better chance of surviving the first 2 or 3 weeks of combat than they would in a Spitfire or newby -109 pilots.

any newbie pilot wouldnt do well...

the hellcat .

the Hellcat was a Zero killer, but what about when it faced the Franks and the Georges? maybe it was a match for the Tony though