Best Fighter

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

The flight was done over the cotinental US. Since he was flying over easily recognizable cities (and I assume tracked by radar) it was relatively easy to judge how far he traveled.

Why couldn't they all do that Lanc? He wasn't flying a specially modified plane and it even carried a full ammo load. Now not every pilot would be up to that strain, but the plane definitely was.
 
but like he said, this was a standard P-38F carrying full ammo load, it wasnt the recon version or anything.
 
3,000+ miles is an impressive ferry range for just about anything from the era especially a fighter. On a true very mission, now ammo would have been carried (saving upwards of 1,500lbs) and the fuel tanks would have been jetisoned once empty (cutting drag and thus increasing speed without increasing fuel consumption). The result is the ferry range would be a few hundred miles greater.
 
What is this? Ammo would save up to 1,500 lbs, you mean firing off ammo. But you're not taking into account combat. So either it will have a full load of ammo or it will have been in combat using more fuel from manuvers and constant change in throttle, like a car uses more fuel if you are changing your acceleration all the time.

3,000 + isn't impressive for a twin-engined Recce plane.
 
I'm sorry, there was a typo in my last post. I had meant to note that on a true ferry mission NO ammo would have been carried. I wasn't refering to a combat mission. And why isn't 3,000+ miles impressive? The only recon plane I know of that could match that was the POST-war Mossies.
 
Exactly another twin-engined plane. It's good, yes but it's not something to shout about if you're comparing it to a single-engined plane. The Spitfire PR. XI could achieve 2000 + miles, and that's single-engined.
 
a few mossies were modified after VE day for use in the pacific, but they we a bit late, they could hit 3,500miles, giving tham a ferry range of 7,000+ miles.............
 
No Lanc. They didn't have a ferry range of 7,000 miles. When discussing the range of the P-38F it should be noted that we are talking about the range of a FIGHTER. Find me another fighter from WWII capable of making a 3,000 mile flight. And for comparison numbers, the ferry range of a B-17G was 3,400 miles. Now when a fighter can come within a few hundred miles of matching the range of a 4 engined bomber, that is something to shout about.
 
Mosquito FB VI: Range = 1,885 miles, therefore ferry range = 3,770 miles

Have I done something wrong here?
 
Yes. You have attempted to make its combat RANGE its combat RADIUS. A combat range of 1,885 miles means the entire distance it can fly at economical power settings on a combat mission. Once things like take-off, formation, climb to altitude (not that important for a Mossie mission), and reserves for combat and emergencies, you are left with a combat radius a fraction of the maximum range (I would guess about 600 miles or so). The ferry range of a plane is usually a few hundred miles greater than the combat range since a ferry mission is flown at best speed an altitude, minus extra weight (like ammo or bombs), and without the need to been in combat reserves.
 
Hmm, I always thought range and radius was the same, but I'll take your word for it - I just wasn't aware the P-38 had that much of a distance advatange over the Mosquito... :oops: :confused:
 
Range and radius are often mistaken. Range is simply how far a plane can fly in a straightline. Radius is how far it can fly AND come back (which is nice to do).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back