Best Fighter

[cheddar cheese]

But once the pilot was used to the P-38 it was a lethal machine.

 

[Yeomanz]

ello i havent been around for a few days houw are you lot ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

depressed.................

 

[cheddar cheese]

Why, has a mirror been installed somewhere near your computer?

I am good Yeo, how are you? 8)

 

[Anonymous]

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??

In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.

1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

That's a good, and cheap, one C.C - well done.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Why thankyou

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes however you have used a similar theory for another joke so this one did not fulfill it's full potential..............

 

[cheddar cheese]

Of course it did

 

[wmaxt]

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??

In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.

1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic

The P-51D was rated at 437 at optimum altitude, the P-38L could do 443 at it optimum altitude a small difference and not decisive in any case but it was there. I hate to admit it but a 5 mph speed difference could be due to waxing, poor maintenance or in the case of the Merlin worn cams of malfunctioning turbos.

As for seeing the enemy first I have to grant you there is more plane to look around on the P-38.

 

[cheddar cheese]

But once combat was engaged I would much rather be in the P-38L

 

[wmaxt]

But once combat was engaged I would much rather be in the P-38L

A Better point!

 

[wmaxt]

The P-51 was a very capable plane capable of flying into Germany holding it's own and returning. When it arrived it had the following advantages:

Politicaly correct timing of arrival
Training programs with combat experianced pilots
Cost in aquiring, maintaining and operating
Numbers
A weakened enemy

It wasn't so much that the P-51 was the best plane but it had the timing to get credit it did not deserve.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Good point.

 

[Hot Space]

Don't forget Spit XIV - just as good except range.

Hot Space

 

[wmaxt]

Don't forget Spit XIV - just as good except range.

Hot Space

Don't forget carrying capacity. That gave the P-38 a bit more flexibility.
The P-38 could take it to the enemy as far as 1,400 miles away fight on a minimum of equal 1 to 1 basis and come home. The next day the same plane can drop 4,000 to 5,200lbs of bombe/rockets on a target 450 to 500 miles away engage enemy fighters on an equal or better 1 to 1 basis and come home to do again the next day.

The Spit was great, as good as it gets, in it's sphere of duties and esp. as an interceptor and the P-38 was it's equal there too.

 

[wmaxt]

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??

In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.

1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic

As to cruise a cruise is still optimum speed to get max range. I have seen the site you refered to, is there one with the same info on the P-38?

The closest I've seen was an account of some P-38s leaving Rumania doing a fast 'Cruise' at over 300mph, was only mentioned because the account was given by a pilot concerned his "one" engine might not be able to maintain the advanced throttle position for an extended time period.

Based on other performance perameters there is no reason (beyond, possibly, the laminar flow wing) that there would be a substantial difference. The fuel load/distance per engine differnce is not great between the two planes. In fact max range fuel load is almost Identicleper engine:

P-38L
55gal wing outboard
90gal main tank
40gal reserve
300gal max outboard
*485gal total
range 2,600mi

P-51D
190gal Main wing Might be 195gal?
85gal fusalage
216gal external
*491gal total
Range 2,300mi

6 gallons More than the P-38, 300 miles less range.

These figures are normal figures not modified by Lindbergs methods assuming they would work similarly on both aircraft.

As shown above the P-51 had no magic formula to fly faster on less. I'm not able to compare your assumtion of range at throttle settings between cruise and METO.

 

[Hot Space]

I think I might lose this one

Hot Space

 

[Anonymous]

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??

In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.

1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic

The P-51D was rated at 437 at optimum altitude, the P-38L could do 443 at it optimum altitude a small difference and not decisive in any case but it was there. I hate to admit it but a 5 mph speed difference could be due to waxing, poor maintenance or in the case of the Merlin worn cams of malfunctioning turbos.

As for seeing the enemy first I have to grant you there is more plane to look around on the P-38.

Well, this is a problem that commonly occures when you mix sources. You're using the Lockheed "best performance" figure for the P-38L against the USAAF's published top speed figure for the P-51D. To be fair you have to compare same against same. The USAAF top speed figure for the P-38L is 414 mph @ ~25,000 feet, where the P-51's top speed figure is 437 mph @ ~25,000 feet.

The P-51D was about 3 mph slower than the P-51B, which has a USAAF published top speed of 440 mph. However, using the North American top speed figure changes the picture dramatically:

Report: NA-5798
Title: "Flight Test Performance for the P-51B-1
Date: January, 1944
Test Weight: 8,460 lbs
High Speed: 453 mph true airspeed at 28,800 feet at 67" HG and 1298 HP,
war emergency power, high blower, critical altitude.

So the P-51D should be about 450 mph, maybe a mph or two less because of the change in critical altitude from 28,800 to 25,600 feet.

This demonstrates the serious problem with comparing figures from different sources.

But again, the real issue is cruise speed. The P-51 could cruise in full auto-lean at speeds up to 395 mph (363 mph was a common fast cruise setting), which is more than 100 mph faster than the P-38 cruise.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[lesofprimus]

Great Points LG.....

There seems to be alot of direspect goin on here for the P-51D... Not a good thing.....

There was a reason why there were so many P-38's in the PTO..... Because they sucked in Europe..... Thats why they werent the dominant fighter...... Conditions and tactics did not favor the P-38's.....

I would rather be in a dogfight with a Bf-109G in a P-51D than a P-38L..... If it was combat with a Ki-84, Id pick the P-38L.....