Best Fighter III

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
mosquitoman said:
The one advantage that the Mustang had over every other fighter was it's range, I've said it elswhere but... A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin

Not every other fighter...there is the P-38 :D
 
Col. Mike Alba (Ret.) - My old neighbor. Flew both the 51 and 38 over Germany, Had 3 1/2 kills (in the Mustang) but liked the P-38 better except he said he froze his tushy off in the Lighting :bootyshake:
 
He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable! Again, Mike said the 38 was the coldest airplne he ever flew!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable!

RG is going to have fit when he reads this! :lol:
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
FLYBOYJ said:
He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable!

RG is going to have fit when he reads this! :lol:

THAT'S WHAT THE MAN SAID! :arcade:
 
Oh I believe exactly what you are saying, but RG thinks that the P-51 is the greatest thing since bread and butter. Yes it was a great aircraft and one of the best ever built however it like all aircraft had faults also. Machines are not perfect.
 
In Col. Alba's words "You had to be a good pilot to fly the P-38. If you were a good pilot and flew the P-51, you became a great pilot. If you were a fair pilot and flew the P-51, you became a good pilot"

Col. Alba told me he did have about 300 hours flying B-25s and A-20s before transferring to fly P-38s. Thats probably why he felt comfortable with the twin engine P-38
 
I spoke with a guy that flew P-38s late in the Pacific and their training in the P-38 was one of the planes had the radio and armor removed from behind the pilot's seat and the knelt behind the pilot who showed them how to work everything and where it was. After that, they were on their own. All of the guys in Bob's group had only flown single engines prior to that (P-39, P-40 mainly). He was surprised they never had any dual engine trainers first. He said the first 20 hours in the P-38 were pure adrenaline. He also said that if they had lost an engine on take-off early on, they would be doomed. But he did say once you got the feel for it, it was a great plane.
 
evangilder said:
I spoke with a guy that flew P-38s late in the Pacific and their training in the P-38 was one of the planes had the radio and armor removed from behind the pilot's seat and the knelt behind the pilot who showed them how to work everything and where it was. After that, they were on their own. All of the guys in Bob's group had only flown single engines prior to that (P-39, P-40 mainly). He was surprised they never had any dual engine trainers first. He said the first 20 hours in the P-38 were pure adrenaline. He also said that if they had lost an engine on take-off early on, they would be doomed. But he did say once you got the feel for it, it was a great plane.

What you say is quite true even for light twin engine aircraft. A twin offers that safety factor, but if you don't remain proficient in engine out failure procedures (especially at take off) you will die very quickly. :dead: If you go to the Federal Aviation Website (FAA) there are a number of twin Cessna crashes this year (400 series). Many of them are due to mis-managing an engine out during take off. Most of these aircraft's engines are about 300 h.p. Could you imagine how proficient you had to be managing 1,427 h.p. when loosing an engine, let alone in combat?!? :eeeeek:
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Oh I believe exactly what you are saying, but RG thinks that the P-51 is the greatest thing since bread and butter. Yes it was a great aircraft and one of the best ever built however it like all aircraft had faults also. Machines are not perfect.

That is not true Alder. I just think the P-51 was competative with all its rivals in WWII. It had a few things it did very well, such as sustain high speeds for extended periods and tremendous range, and others it was not so good at, such as sustained hard turns and durability under fire.

The P-38 was a great plane, but it's not until you get into the late J series that it really came into its own. And it was flawed in its ability at high speeds because the wings were not properly designed for it - it should have had a little more wing area but thinner wings.

All-in-all, I think the F4U-4 and P-47M/N were the best American fighters.

The F4U-4 was probably the best pure fighter of the three perticularly under about 27,000 feet. But of course, it didn't see action in the ETO.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Just a thought the Zero had a good range when used for Kamikazi One way only so it required no fuel for the return trip.
FLYBOYJ said:
Again, Mike said the 38 was the coldest airplne he ever flew!
I wonder how your freind Mike would have felt about doing the Murmansk convoy runs in an old Stringbag either way it's not my idea of warm. I'm glad it wasn't me freezing me gonads off in a P38 or anything else I would have thought a waist gunner on a Fort got a bit chilly too.
speaking of chilly P38's I found this (although you've probably seen it) http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/mshwma20.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back