Best Fighter III

Look forward to seeing the revised edition Jon. Keep up the good work.

Lets hope this brings activity back here...

I fell asleep last night while working on the "WW2 Fighter Operational Air to Air Performance Direct Comparison Table Rev. 3.1". They are ready. Enjoy!!! Please send feedback.

Very nice charts Jon, some great information there.

Its interesting that the P-38L comes out on top, when its combat results in Europe don't really show that. Against German opponents the Lightning had a kill ratio of approximately 1.1~1.2 in the ETO.

Allied intelligence reports and interviews with captured German fighter pilots revealed that if German pilots had to go up against a fighter in the ETO, then they though the Lightening was the easiest pickings and the Spitfire the most difficult.

The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.

I couldn't agree more... In some of my earlier posts I mentioned economics, field service, training, but the arguments from most members when faced with those aspects went to pure 'specs'. I'm not able to find the following information to include in my tables, if you can help >>> the cost of non-American fighters; Service hours required vs flight time; Minimum training hours... Further, within the limited 'scope' of any table, the pilot, his skills are always missing. Sad to say...

Jabberwocky>>>

The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.

Click to expand...

It was this part of your posting I was agreeing with... I post this mostly because I'm learning how to operate the toys here. Thanks for the encouragement.

If anyone can provide, or direct me, as to where to find any of the information mentioned in my previous post, please contact me.

JonJGoldberg said:

Jabberwocky>>>

The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.

Click to expand...

It was this part of your posting I was agreeing with... I post this mostly because I'm learning how to operate the toys here. Thanks for the encouragement.

If anyone can provide, or direct me, as to where to find any of the information mentioned in my previous post, please contact me.

Click to expand...

The Offical view is a little biased against the lightning.

The early models had some trouble and the comment by Jimmy Doolittle the man who opted for the P-51 in the ETO in conversations with Warren Bodie made these remarks not a direct quote: The P-38 may not have been the best fighter of WWII but this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to to the aircrafts capabilities. Strategic and Tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilazitionof this type at the time they were first deployed to the ETO. The P-51Bs and P-47s would have done poorly under the conditions the P-38s flew in. (and remember these were new basicaly untried planes at the time.
He went on to offer this opinion It was at its prime at lower altitudes and warmer climates. and went on to say It was far ahead of all but the one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII.

The engines had problems first from the fuel and the standard operating provisions did not keep the engines warm, reduced cockpit heat, used more fuel than needed and that was made worse by using 1 generator that was overloades.
Cockpit heat was terrible both in fact and exaserbated by the operating conditions used by the 8th AF.
Compression in dives above 20k was an issue but the 8th restricted the planes from diving when all that had to be done was retard the throttles.
Range was also reduced because the 8th never used the 300 gallon drop tanks.
All this was fixed in the J-25 on.

With all these problems the 8th AF lost 451 P-38s the entire war (at 10 german:1 P-38 odds). I don't yet have numbers for the 9th which was primarily G/A. The P-38 had just under 5:1 (608:113 P-38s) in the MTO and I've heard 8:1 in the PTO but I haven't sorted that all out yet. FGs with the L model often reported 20:1 near the end of the war.

The vast majority of the 1,771 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air (the ETO) was by the 8th. The true loss rate is around 4:1 in favor of the P-38. I have not sorted out the numbers all the way but the 1,758 lost P-38s cannot be accurate with the info, from AAF statistics, I have now.

The early models were considered superior to its rivals below 15K and even above 20K by the 20th FG. Several German pilots relate similar stories. There is also a story about an H model outperforming a Griffon Spitfire. In the Planes and Pilots there are some very candid remarks by Art Hieden about the P-38s, P-38Ls and the P-51s.

wmaxt

Curious on how others are trying to answer the question Best Fighter of WW2, I opened an article titled "F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber of WW2?" while sampling one of Jabberwocky's posted 'source' sights, (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html). Mind you, I've just finished posting Rev.3 of my tables, which contains the newly added F4U-1D, which did not fair well. Maybe, as the '38, '190, Mc205V, to name a few, I shoud have done the -4;maybe I'll do the -4b, the cannon armed monster. Secondly, if you recall (probably not, I like too many of these dam planes), the F4U is one of my favs, but with the Corsair, I can remember after 1st seeing the bent wings, this is no recent affair (Believe it or not the Pony, Jug, Warhawk are newcomers, have to a great deal displaced the 'Bent Winged Bird' as the center of WW2 fighter attention, for me), I scribe this at the age of 44, refer to a memory wile I was 8, looking for a 'hobby' other than carving boring soap box racers from wood. I told my dad that I wanted to "…build a model of that. What is it?" He didn't know. Woops, I digress…
I started reading Corey C. Jordan's copyright protected F4U article (that I can only describe/surmise, as the site clearly states that posting to a 'public forum' any part of the article without express written permission…). He starts taking about strong arguments supporting the -4 Corsair's merits, in attempt to show how strong his argument is, states that the aircraft had only 6-months to serve during WW2, but it was respected by MIG-15 pilots in Korea, at low altitude, below 300 knots… I closed the article.
My point here is that although painful, if we are to indeed to decide on the best fighter of WW2, not by opinion, but some sort of empirical chart, or by committee, we should at least agree that all evidence of ascendancy come from WW2. I'm not saying that one can not support their point of view on which WW2 fighter was best by saying "… it went on to serve admirably in Korea." But to use the 'next' war in which the aircraft served to cement its position status as a weapon during WW2 is ludicrous. I'd love to address within my tables, what was a WW2 fighter; how many needed to be built; from when to when; did it need to see combat… I know I've asked before, but now you, the members here have seen some commitment from me… Another place I'm going with this is; do I include Egyptian moded Mc205V (as if I could acquire enough data for that) as at least one of them claimed an Israeli P-51 in 1948. Or what about the Israeli moded Merlin Bf-109s (tell me there is no irony here), or…

The Offical view is a little biased against the lightning.

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

The evidence shows that you are correct in this assessment with regard to the ETO, I agree; however the 'bias' was/is not without warrant.

The early models had some trouble and the comment by Jimmy Doolittle the man who opted for the P-51 in the ETO in conversations with Warren Bodie made these remarks...

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

I believe, with regard to the P-38 ETO Doolittle made the correct assessment; you are also correctly assessing in part in retrospect, both what could have happened, if allowed, why it didn't happen in fact, engine troubles the applied strangling safety measures. The other part, missed was/is the cost, in sheer dead Presidents, money, all aspects of fielding the Lighting, from purchase, through training maintenance, to the cost to fly. Looked at from this perspective, 1 Lighting (Cost: $115,000) = 2 P-51s (Cost: $108,000) with $7,000 remaining for party money. If I changed the names, for a moment, to 1 F-14 = 2 F-18s, what do you choose? If I further inform you that each sortie flown in an F-14 will cost you more in supplies service hrs. than an equivalent of 2 F-18s flying the same mission...

Strategic and Tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilazitionof this type at the time they were first deployed to the ETO. The P-51Bs and P-47s would have done poorly under the conditions the P-38s flew in.

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

As you ( I) point out all these specs, one of the things I which I could qualify is the effect of rumor. For example, hypothetically you're a '38 pilot, proud of your mount, but a friend of yours, not a bad '38 driver, not great, fairly aggressive lost it on take off. Several weeks later this crazily moded '38 comes knockin' to show you how safe your plane actually is… Gotta take the wind out a bit. ...Food for thought as to the doctrine, its stay.

He went on to offer this opinion It was at its prime at lower altitudes and warmer climates. and went on to say It was far ahead of all but the one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII.

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

"When the equipment was working properly, the P-38 was a definite match for German fighters. In fact, when below 20,000 ft., the P-38 was superior in many ways. The problem was that the Germans rarely engaged American fighters at lower altitudes...." This quote from http://www.p-38online.com/decline.html

...Range was also reduced because the 8th never used the 300 gallon drop tanks.
All this was fixed in the J-25 on.

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

For sure you are more versed in Lighting history than I. I still correlate all these statements to engine troubles, specific to ETO, but with regard to the solution being –J25 later, this I question (I'm not saying I know); only in light of LeVier's early '44 mission, which resulted in (among other things), I thought, starting in June '44, deliveries of the 2520 P-38L-5-LOs equipped with submerged fuel pumps. I thought I read wile acquiring data to work my tables, that this was the primary difference between the similar set of J-25-LO L-1-LOs that preceded the L-5-LO, that the L-5-LO was the 1st '38 variant with lifted ETO restrictions, save the external tank size (this for sure was due to comfort levels based on ETO bias, I believe, possibly a shortage of 300 gallon tanks, as the were being consumed in the PTO, '38 specific).

With all these problems the 8th AF lost 451 P-38s the entire war (at 10 german:1 P-38 odds). I don't yet have numbers ... considered superior to its rivals below 15K and even above 20K by the 20th FG. Several German pilots relate similar stories ...

Click to expand...

Reply to Wmaxt >>

I really don't quite know how to reply here, maybe it's best to remain silent, but there's no fun in that… The earlier models were superior, in some respects, to their German adversaries @ medium altitudes; I'll concede this by thumb wrestle for now to get the point across, as well as above 20K ft. but not to the point that the '38 'outclassed' them. Again, I'm the last one, especially now, to say the Lighting couldn't perform. It sure could, with a Bong (watch it…) at the wheel, in the PTO, she ruled. But, the '38 required an Ace with skilz to pilot her well, use her correctly draw out her potential, where as many other types, for the sake of the point ( as shown to date within the tables), with nearly equal aerial performance, were a lot less expensive, similarly, a lot less demanding, therefore potentially exploited more fully.

The cost issue is not valid durring the war, as I've pointed out before the P-38 went to a second source in '45 after the P-51 etc. had "proven" themselves. Once the war was over it was a whole different story, and the P-38 went quickly, the last being bulldozed in early '50.

The superority of early P-38s (low level primaririly) was mentioned (I'll try to find the quote and reference)by the German comander on Sardinia that his aircraft were totaly outclassed by the P-38 in all respects to the point that he complained to Adolf Galland. In p38 online there is a story by a German ace with a Bf-109-G6 that is pertinent here.

the 451 P-38s lost by the 8th AF can be found here
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml This is also where all the 'engine problems' occured and includes enemy aircraft (odds up to 10:1 in 43/early44), engines, cold, accidents and everything else. This does not include losses incurred by the 9th AF which did a portion of the escort duties.

The P-38 was doing long range escort in the MTO and the PTO for several months to close to a year (respecively) before the 8th gave up self defending bombers. The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. By minimizing the ability and use of the "problems" of the 38 and saying a capable escort fighter was not available until the P-51, the leaders of the airforce were able to sidestep the congressonal investigations on the loss of life on bomber missions and save their carrears. The three articals on the Der Gaber... in Planes and pilots touches on this I think as does
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

I like the F4U-4 artical and endorse its use in your data chart. One of the reasons I like it is that it shows the 'except for the P-38 points' though it missed a couple of others.

The comments/opinions by Jim Dollittle of the P-38 'was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. And 'as would the P-51 and P-47 had they been operated under the same conditions'. As well as the comments in the P-38 articals by Art Heiden (and others) in The Planes and Pilots of WWII were not hopped up P-38s.

In his book on the P-38 Warren Body (I recomend this book) mentions some very good stuff. P-38 Online has some good stuff but also has a lot of standard stuff that has been around forever and is biased as well.

Another artical to check on is Jeff Ethels flight of a P-38 in the Flight Jourlal Magazine site. Jeff flew most if not all WWII fighters so his comments should be pretty good.

I don't think the P-38, even the L, was the end all pistion fighter but it did the job it was asked every where it was asked to do it, even the ETO. It was always compettitive with it's contemporary compettitors and the L was, if not better than was as good as and always had at least 1 or 2 advantages over its compettitors and even stable mate. The Fw-190, Spitfire and F4U-4 were right there too in fact I think these 4 are the best Piston fightes ever.

wmaxt

wmaxt said:

....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt

Click to expand...

That mission was in 1943.

The cost issue is not valid durring the war, as I've pointed out before the P-38 went to a second source in '45 after the P-51 etc. had "proven" themselves.

Click to expand...

Reply to wmtmax >>>
Cost is always an issue during war, unless the circumstance (such as imminent self preservation, or an act of congress...), or dictator (King, Generalissimo, etc. of same stature) declares otherwise. You mention yourself about the Warren Body... I finally understand the 2nd source thing, you mean a 2nd factory. Yes, the orders existed, a 2nd plant was opened, they delivered about 120 planes from there, if memory serves from what I read about a month ago now, the order was canceled. But I don't know what your getting at. If its the money thing, well let me say that just because it's an expensive weapon, it doesn't mean we ain't gonna build it, but not enough to give to everyone. If you try countering with something like, well if it was so expensive, how come a 2nd factory, especially since the '47, '51 were readily available... Because you don't put all eggs into one basket (the USA continues this tradition, F-15 > F-16, F-4 > F-5, one fighter expensive top quality, the other inexpensive, relatively, but capable); the amount of orders for the '47 '51 canceled at wars end dwarf the orders for '38s.

I like the F4U-4 artical and endorse its use in your data chart. One of the reasons I like it is that it shows the 'except for the P-38 points' though it missed a couple of others.

Click to expand...

Reply to wmtmax >>>
Figures. OK I'll add the -4 Corsair, I don't agree, but OK. As I was saying in the my last post I love the plane, but the -4 Corsair could not have had much of a chance during its 6-months with the Marines at fighter vs fighter or even fighter vs bomber, even during Korea. My understanding of the Korean War -4 -5s is that they were heavily armored up, fitted with wing racks aplenty. These are generally considered 'improvements' for a mud fighter, not a dog fighter, especially when the Corsair in general was, at the very least, an adequately armored Fighter/Bomber before attending the Mud Puddle Armor School for Old Fighters.

Reply to wmtmax >>>
As for the other stuff I didn't quote... Thanks for the info. I agree that the '38 was a very strong competitor at medium, medium high altitudes; I do not agree that it walked all over just about every other fighter, friend or foe, look at the tables. It came in 1st overall, tied with the '190-D, but unlike the '190 aced nothing except range; it was upper mid pack in most categories, averaging very well as most others were very strong in only one category, falling way off in others, the '38 received, duly, bonus points for two engines, which, in this closely contested field, put it over the top.

To All >>>
A screen shot of my current favorite sim fighter, one I'm thinking about adding to the tables, along with the Hurricane, I have enough data for both, not that this empirical table will do them well, only that there is a debate raging on a 'sister' thread; after reading this you deserve a prize...

syscom3 said:

wmaxt said:

....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt

Click to expand...

That mission was in 1943.

Click to expand...

Your right April 18, 43, hit the wrong key.

wmaxt

Jon,

If you don't feel the F4U-4 is appropriate thats ok to. I hope you got the Roll, climb, speed data from the Planes and Pilots Page, it's the only location on the web that uses WEP power instead of METO power for its performance.

I wish I could get your chart but I can't seem to find a way to save it or get into a pdf program. I run Explorer and XP, if anyone has ideas it would be great.

The hardest part of this is to quantify Tactics, and pilot skill.

A lot has been said about the difficulty in flying the P-38 but when the training was approprite in '45 it had a much better accident rate than every other AAF fighter even the Mustang! Check it out on the AAF statistics page or the 8th AF losses page. overall the only plane that had a better accident record was the mustang at 824 for the war period. Compare that to 1,403/P-38, 1,923/P-39, 3,569/P-40 and 3,049/P-47 all rates per 100,000 flying hours.

By 44 the cost of a P-47 was $87,000 to a P-38 at $98,000 they made 16K? P-47s. The P-38 problem was numbers of A/C due to lack of second source until so late. The performance specs are on the Planes and Pilots page, Production was denied Primarily because of a ~2-3 week delay in production, about 120 planes. Cost was not the issue at this time.

Your doing great, keep it up.

wmaxt

wmaxt you need Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can get it here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

wmaxt said:

syscom3 said:

wmaxt said:

....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt

Click to expand...

That mission was in 1943.

Click to expand...

Your right April 18, 43, hit the wrong key.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Your punishment is to drink a six pack of WARM BUDWEISER BEER!!!!!

hehehehehe

syscom3 said:

wmaxt said:

syscom3 said:

wmaxt said:

....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt

Click to expand...

That mission was in 1943.

Click to expand...

Your right April 18, 43, hit the wrong key.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Your punishment is to drink a six pack of WARM BUDWEISER BEER!!!!!

hehehehehe

Click to expand...

GOD JUST KICK ME IN THE NUTS!

OK....

P.S. You're Welcome My Son...

God that's better, just keep that beer away from me!

OK, I'll try, but them damn Jesuits........

LOL